Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
OverSword

Students protest transgender use of locker rm

1,004 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Br Cornelius
Well, yes, mental and emotional stress and depression are common to transgenders and to dentists. But their attempted and successful suicide rates are not in the same ballpark. I'm not sure any cohort is as high as transgender's suicide at least in westernized countries.

At 2x the national average for post-operative transgenders - that is far from true.

Br Cornelius

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

The point regarding religious attitudes to genital mutilation is informative.

Religion can insist on genital mutilation (circumcision) as a tribal marker, yet finds other genital mutilation aberrant (sex reassignment), which tells us one thing - we shouldn't look to rteligion as a consistent lead on what is right and wrong.

PS. Roby, have the catholics been coaching you on your choice of language :w00t: Mutilation inflicted on innocents - very catholic.

Br Cornelius

Indeed, her claims do seem to be coming from somewhere else other then the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LV-426

There are, and always have been, many types of family. The bible thumpers and the like that raise one up as an ideal are attacking all others. That's the real attack on the family.

I'm actually finding this debate intriguing, as I'm slightly - only slightly ;) - at odds with a lot of posters who I'm normally 100% in agreement with.

There are, as you say, many types of family in modern times; heterosexual, LGBT, single parent, adopted, etc. There's no guaranteed formula for success, and the love of a child isn't dependent on gender or sexual orientation. Well balanced, caring adults may come from atypical family units. The opposite may come from a 'traditional' upbringing.

I do get really tired of people suggesting that a man and a woman, creating life and raising a child together isn't 'the ideal' though. It's nature. It's the biological interaction between the opposite sexes. If it wasn't, there would be no such thing as gender, or we'd be a parthenogenetic species, or we'd all be hermaphroditic.

Embracing peoples' differences, and not making them feel outcasts from society is one thing. Totally denying nature to turn humankind into something its not, is another thing entirely.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robinrenee

Robin, you said "gender reassignment is insane," which indicates to me you are very uncomfortable with the idea of gender reassignment, because you think it is genital mutilation for profit, you even said Google pictures to see for ourselves how transgenders are being mangled, so I did-- I googled vaginoplastys done in gender reassignment cases and I did not find mangled mutilated pictures, I found pictures that are amazing by anyone's standards. In fact, I can't believe how far plastic surgery has come.

Nothing you are posting as your evidence about our transgender community is panning out, it does seem reasonable to infer that you have some kind of issue, of course it is only my opinion, for whatever it is worth to you.

This is not to say one shouldn't choose a well credentialed plastic surgeon, or go through the nessecary steps required to reassign ones gender, or have private bathrooms, but genital mutilation for profit is unfounded.

Good grief, Sherapy, you don't know much about medical terms, do you? Vaginoplasty is the surgical tightening of a woman's vagina usually done after one of more difficult childbirths. It has nothing to do with transgender. It looks "amazing by anyone's standards" because it's actually a female... sheez...

Female to male transgender surgery is called suprapubic phalloplasty.

Female to male surgery is less successful because clitoral tissue is small when attempting to use it to create a penis with pleasurable sensations. The final product of the penis cannot attain an erection because of the absence of corpus cavernosum and corpus spongiosum. This is the tissue that expands with blood during an erection. Therefore, a pump is required for an erection. (This makes me wonder if they have ever tried penile tissue donation from an organ donor.)

Male to female surgery requires removal of the penis. Next an incision is made in the scrotum. The testes are removed, and the urethra is shortened. Excess skin is used to create labia and a vagina.

Here's an infographic: http://www.livescience.com/39170-how-gender-reassignment-surgery-works-infographic.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Auntyseptic

Good grief, Sherapy, you don't know much about medical terms, do you? Vaginoplasty is the surgical tightening of a woman's vagina usually done after one of more difficult childbirths. It has nothing to do with transgender. It looks "amazing by anyone's standards" because it's actually a female... sheez...

Female to male transgender surgery is called suprapubic phalloplasty.

Female to male surgery is less successful because clitoral tissue is small when attempting to use it to create a penis with pleasurable sensations. The final product of the penis cannot attain an erection because of the absence of corpus cavernosum and corpus spongiosum. This is the tissue that expands with blood during an erection. Therefore, a pump is required for an erection. (This makes me wonder if they have ever tried penile tissue donation from an organ donor.)

Male to female surgery requires removal of the penis. Next an incision is made in the scrotum. The testes are removed, and the urethra is shortened. Excess skin is used to create labia and a vagina.

Here's an infographic: http://www.livescien...nfographic.html

Eww, Must you, Was trying to eat a sandwich here.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Good grief, Sherapy, you don't know much about medical terms, do you? Vaginoplasty is the surgical tightening of a woman's vagina usually done after one of more difficult childbirths. It has nothing to do with transgender. It looks "amazing by anyone's standards" because it's actually a female... sheez...

Female to male transgender surgery is called suprapubic phalloplasty.

Female to male surgery is less successful because clitoral tissue is small when attempting to use it to create a penis with pleasurable sensations. The final product of the penis cannot attain an erection because of the absence of corpus cavernosum and corpus spongiosum. This is the tissue that expands with blood during an erection. Therefore, a pump is required for an erection. (This makes me wonder if they have ever tried penile tissue donation from an organ donor.)

Male to female surgery requires removal of the penis. Next an incision is made in the scrotum. The testes are removed, and the urethra is shortened. Excess skin is used to create labia and a vagina.

Here's an infographic: http://www.livescience.com/39170-how-gender-reassignment-surgery-works-infographic.html

Per your instructions, I googled SRS and found a site devoted to it through University of Mich., including the pics and history.

I noted that next to the pic it was called vaginoplasty, and yes, I am aware that it is used for other purposes too, childbirth, and cosmetic.

I did not know the medical term for female to male so thanks for the information.

Robin, What I am questioning/countering is where are the pics of the gentile mutilation that you are basing your opinion on?

In all fairness to you, I did consider your opinion as viable, genital mutilation causing suicides etc. etc. until I saw pictures for myself, did some research and have concluded, this far, it is unfounded.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robinrenee

I've seen transgendered people after the healing is complete and honestly, it's incredible.

I'm glad to hear that. Eye witness account cannot be denied. I wish for your transgendered friend a long, happy, and healthy life.

There are, and always have been, many types of family. The bible thumpers and the like that raise one up as an ideal are attacking all others. That's the real attack on the family.

Yes, there are many types of family. I think most religions try to protect the family. I think they're attacking a lifestyle, and they're avoiding letting their children associate with people they don't want them to emulate. And they're ALL doing that ... whether it be the Jewish, who are very xenophobic about marrying outside of their faith.

Islam protects their families by polygamous sharia law and censoring the debased part of the entertainment industry.

Fundamental Christians try, but it's difficult in Western society. They use home schooling and Christian schools and censoring the debased part of the entertainment industry.

Main stream U.S. churches are trying to isolate their children from the influence of a degenerate society by private schools and planning entertainment and sports at the church... camping... drama productions, orchestra.... etc. Anything to keep youth focus on Christian values and isolation from the "drugs and sex" culture of some communities.

Baha'i religion is doing the same as the mainstream Christians, but with emphasis on the global community and service to mankind. They have private schools all over the world, and they frequently will send their high school age kids to schools in other countries. For instance, a friend sent her 14 year old daughter to India for high school. The daughter lived with an Indian family in New Delhi. She came back to the U.S. for college (UNC-Asheville).

The main concern in all the religions is to isolate and indoctrinate and entertain and encourage friendships within the greater church fellowship. They all pattern their endeavors after Proverbs 22:6 "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."

I think they're all relatively successful.

Edited by robinrenee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robinrenee

The point regarding religious attitudes to genital mutilation is informative.

Religion can insist on genital mutilation (circumcision) as a tribal marker, yet finds other genital mutilation aberrant (sex reassignment), which tells us one thing - we shouldn't look to rteligion as a consistent lead on what is right and wrong.

PS. Roby, have the catholics been coaching you on your choice of language :w00t: Mutilation inflicted on innocents - very catholic.

Br Cornelius

No, but funny you should mention that. My family was apparently running away from the Irish Catholic Church (among other reasons) when they came to the U.S. Anyway, 250 years later, some of my fundamental Baptist relatives warned me when I was a child not to step one foot on the Catholic Church's property because the nuns and priests would grab me and tell me things that would make me go to hell.

That mentality was what I was running from during my brief excursion into Atheism. :st

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shadowhive

I'm glad to hear that. Eye witness account cannot be denied. I wish for your transgendered friend a long, happy, and healthy life.

Me too

Yes, there are many types of family. I think most religions try to protect the family. I think they're attacking a lifestyle, and they're avoiding letting their children associate with people they don't want them to emulate. And they're ALL doing that ... whether it be the Jewish, who are very xenophobic about marrying outside of their faith.

Islam protects their families by polygamous sharia law and censoring the debased part of the entertainment industry.

Fundamental Christians try, but it's difficult in Western society. They use home schooling and Christian schools and censoring the debased part of the entertainment industry.

Main stream U.S. churches are trying to isolate their children from the influence of a degenerate society by private schools and planning entertainment and sports at the church... camping... drama productions, orchestra.... etc. Anything to keep youth focus on Christian values and isolation from the "drugs and sex" culture of some communities.

Baha'i religion is doing the same as the mainstream Christians, but with emphasis on the global community and service to mankind. They have private schools all over the world, and they frequently will send their high school age kids to schools in other countries. For instance, a friend sent her 14 year old daughter to India for high school. The daughter lived with an Indian family in New Delhi. She came back to the U.S. for college (UNC-Asheville).

The main concern in all the religions is to isolate and indoctrinate and entertain and encourage friendships within the greater church fellowship. They all pattern their endeavors after Proverbs 22:6 "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it."

I think they're all relatively successful.

The problem in a secular society, especially one of our technological level, is that keeping people away from 'undesirables' is very difficult. This is making the isolation and indoctrination increasingly difficult to accomplish. And, to be honest, that's a good thing. Isolating a kid from other groups is isolating them from the real world and gives them a skewed view of it. Children are, most importantly, individual human beings and shouldn't be indoctrinated into religion in the first place. People should choose their religion, freely and when they are old enough to make the decision for themselves, not by being forced to. (It's funny how some people argue that a key part of religion is you're not supposed to force people to be a part of it, then do what you describe to their children.)

That isolation and indoctrination is also a problem if it's done to a LGBT person, and can seriously damage them as a result (and contributes to the higher suicide rates to them as a result).

Indeed, we're at a point now (and have been for some time) where that indoctrination and isolation ends up destroying families. The moment the child is exposed to the real world and leaves their parent's faith, or realises they're LGBT and then bam, family fails because their child is 'debased' or 'degenerate'.

Such indoctrinate really doesn't have a place anymore and the sooner it's gotten rid of, the better.

Xenophobia, racism, sexism, homophobia, terrorism... all have been spread by such indoctrination. It's time we break that cycle, rather than keep hold of it for the sake of 'tradition'.

Edited by shadowhive
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robinrenee

At 2x the national average for post-operative transgenders - that is far from true.

Br Cornelius

I've searched several times for transgender post-surgery suicide rates, but I just have not been able to corroborate what you're saying. That Swedish study that you referenced is the only one that I have seen. "Peer-reviewed" doesn't always mean it's correct. It just means that the scientists applied standard scientific procedures that enabled them to get published. As more scientists publish on the same subject, it becomes more accepted by the scientific community. I've only seen that one Swedish study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

I'm actually finding this debate intriguing, as I'm slightly - only slightly ;) - at odds with a lot of posters who I'm normally 100% in agreement with.

There are, as you say, many types of family in modern times; heterosexual, LGBT, single parent, adopted, etc. There's no guaranteed formula for success, and the love of a child isn't dependent on gender or sexual orientation. Well balanced, caring adults may come from atypical family units. The opposite may come from a 'traditional' upbringing.

I do get really tired of people suggesting that a man and a woman, creating life and raising a child together isn't 'the ideal' though. It's nature. It's the biological interaction between the opposite sexes. If it wasn't, there would be no such thing as gender, or we'd be a parthenogenetic species, or we'd all be hermaphroditic.

Embracing peoples' differences, and not making them feel outcasts from society is one thing. Totally denying nature to turn humankind into something its not, is another thing entirely.

I don't think anyone here has really done that. All we are arguing for is a stretching of the envalope of normality.

Br Cornelius

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

I've searched several times for transgender post-surgery suicide rates, but I just have not been able to corroborate what you're saying. That Swedish study that you referenced is the only one that I have seen. "Peer-reviewed" doesn't always mean it's correct. It just means that the scientists applied standard scientific procedures that enabled them to get published. As more scientists publish on the same subject, it becomes more accepted by the scientific community. I've only seen that one Swedish study.

The Swedish study is a meta study so encompasses almost all of the available evidence.

Br Cornelius

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robinrenee

I'm actually finding this debate intriguing, as I'm slightly - only slightly ;) - at odds with a lot of posters who I'm normally 100% in agreement with.

There are, as you say, many types of family in modern times; heterosexual, LGBT, single parent, adopted, etc. There's no guaranteed formula for success, and the love of a child isn't dependent on gender or sexual orientation. Well balanced, caring adults may come from atypical family units. The opposite may come from a 'traditional' upbringing.

I do get really tired of people suggesting that a man and a woman, creating life and raising a child together isn't 'the ideal' though. It's nature. It's the biological interaction between the opposite sexes. If it wasn't, there would be no such thing as gender, or we'd be a parthenogenetic species, or we'd all be hermaphroditic.

Embracing peoples' differences, and not making them feel outcasts from society is one thing. Totally denying nature to turn humankind into something its not, is another thing entirely.

And the voice of wisdom speaks.... I agree, LV. :tu:

:tu:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shadowhive

I'm actually finding this debate intriguing, as I'm slightly - only slightly ;) - at odds with a lot of posters who I'm normally 100% in agreement with.

There are, as you say, many types of family in modern times; heterosexual, LGBT, single parent, adopted, etc. There's no guaranteed formula for success, and the love of a child isn't dependent on gender or sexual orientation. Well balanced, caring adults may come from atypical family units. The opposite may come from a 'traditional' upbringing.

I do get really tired of people suggesting that a man and a woman, creating life and raising a child together isn't 'the ideal' though. It's nature. It's the biological interaction between the opposite sexes. If it wasn't, there would be no such thing as gender, or we'd be a parthenogenetic species, or we'd all be hermaphroditic.

Embracing peoples' differences, and not making them feel outcasts from society is one thing. Totally denying nature to turn humankind into something its not, is another thing entirely.

Well I've never seen anyone argue against the man/woman family. I argue against those that treat is as the ideal, acting like it's the perfect type of family and all the others are inferior. As someone from a single parent family (and as a member of the LGBT community), I find such arguements often get increadibly tiresome at best, outright offensive at worst.

Using nature as part of the arguement is a tricky thing. When it's pointed out that there's animals in nature with other familiy units that means nothing, same when there's a natural element to homosexuality. And yet they also don't argue against other 'unatural' things. Cars, heart surgery, the internet etc. So using nature as part of an arguement becomes, well, meaningless.

Fact is, many types of family exist. Always have, always will. One shouldn't be venerated over the rest.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

And the voice of wisdom speaks.... I agree, LV. :tu:

:tu:

Can you actually direct me to these comments from a contributor where they claim that a LGBS relationship with children is superior to a heterosexual relationship with children. I believe you will struggle because there has been only one comment where someone indicated that children of lesbian parents can measure better in social adjustment metrics.

I don't think anyone here is disparaging the heterosexual family in any way and almost all of the contributors supporting transgender people are in happy heterosexual families.

Br Cornelius

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robinrenee

Me too

The problem in a secular society, especially one of our technological level, is that keeping people away from 'undesirables' is very difficult. This is making the isolation and indoctrination increasingly difficult to accomplish. And, to be honest, that's a good thing. Isolating a kid from other groups is isolating them from the real world and gives them a skewed view of it. Children are, most importantly, individual human beings and shouldn't be indoctrinated into religion in the first place. People should choose their religion, freely and when they are old enough to make the decision for themselves, not by being forced to. (It's funny how some people argue that a key part of religion is you're not supposed to force people to be a part of it, then do what you describe to their children.)

That isolation and indoctrination is also a problem if it's done to a LGBT person, and can seriously damage them as a result (and contributes to the higher suicide rates to them as a result).

Indeed, we're at a point now (and have been for some time) where that indoctrination and isolation ends up destroying families. The moment the child is exposed to the real world and leaves their parent's faith, or realises they're LGBT and then bam, family fails because their child is 'debased' or 'degenerate'.

Such indoctrinate really doesn't have a place anymore and the sooner it's gotten rid of, the better.

Xenophobia, racism, sexism, homophobia, terrorism... all have been spread by such indoctrination. It's time we break that cycle, rather than keep hold of it for the sake of 'tradition'.

There's another problem that I see with the isolation indoctrination of home schooling. The kids are usually not prepared academically for the college curriculum. If the parents are well educated, they can facilitate that some with things like NASA's space camp, history brought alive with travel, etc..... But when the parents are not well educated and the Christian school is not up to par, the student's future potential suffers.

But, I don't know. A lot of state-run school systems are dumbing down a lot now too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Me too

The problem in a secular society, especially one of our technological level, is that keeping people away from 'undesirables' is very difficult. This is making the isolation and indoctrination increasingly difficult to accomplish. And, to be honest, that's a good thing. Isolating a kid from other groups is isolating them from the real world and gives them a skewed view of it. Children are, most importantly, individual human beings and shouldn't be indoctrinated into religion in the first place. People should choose their religion, freely and when they are old enough to make the decision for themselves, not by being forced to. (It's funny how some people argue that a key part of religion is you're not supposed to force people to be a part of it, then do what you describe to their children.)

That isolation and indoctrination is also a problem if it's done to a LGBT person, and can seriously damage them as a result (and contributes to the higher suicide rates to them as a result).

Indeed, we're at a point now (and have been for some time) where that indoctrination and isolation ends up destroying families. The moment the child is exposed to the real world and leaves their parent's faith, or realises they're LGBT and then bam, family fails because their child is 'debased' or 'degenerate'.

Such indoctrinate really doesn't have a place anymore and the sooner it's gotten rid of, the better.

Xenophobia, racism, sexism, homophobia, terrorism... all have been spread by such indoctrination. It's time we break that cycle, rather than keep hold of it for the sake of 'tradition'.

I agree with you Shadow, this isolating from others, for fear of can perpetuate a lot of intolerance and exclusion. I come from this first hand, I spent my first 7 years of life in rural Michigan as a fundamentalist Catholic, similar dogma that Robin describes, then due to the physical abuse, I was removed and taken in by my grandparents and moved to California. I am so grateful for this, I was indoctrinated with so many intolerances based on religion, ignorance, and fears and my grandmother in her wisdom gave me the best gift of all which is exposure to other ideas, other perspectives, and other traditions, it didnt take long to see for myself that my mom was taught to fear the things that went against her relgious teachings, while it is a way to do things I think it causes a lot of harm. And my mom and I never had much of a relationship due to this. I always say my grandma was ahead of her time.

My son has been offered a football scholarship at a Christian College in the Midwest, and he Is seriously considering it and we think it will be an opportunity for him to have an experience, one that is for him to decide and determine, without superimposed biases from me, I am an atheist. I keep out of my kids religious beliefs or lack of and their sexuality. I did have an age appropriate input/ say on drugs and alcohol though, I agree with Robin on this that it needs to be discussed, my 22 year old drinks an occasional beer, my 26 year old does not drink, the youngest is not of legal age, none of them do drugs. My best friends boys also took basketball scholarships to a Christian School in Texas, and what has been fun is hearing their experiences without superimposed biases.

For the record, My friends sons: one is an Athiest, one is Christian, both are having he time of their life at college and my son is Catholic by choice, yet it wouldn't matter anyways he is the type that wherever he went he will glean a lot of good from the experience, if he chooses it. As parents we are preparing them for the world not isolating them from it. What we teach or fail to teach can make things harder then they need to be.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

There's another problem that I see with the isolation indoctrination of home schooling. The kids are usually not prepared academically for the college curriculum. If the parents are well educated, they can facilitate that some with things like NASA's space camp, history brought alive with travel, etc..... But when the parents are not well educated and the Christian school is not up to par, the student's future potential suffers.

But, I don't know. A lot of state-run school systems are dumbing down a lot now too.

I actually spent time with the Christian homeschooling community in my state of CA as part of my personal research because I was considering the route for my youngest. We ended up going with a state online (home based)Charter school for these reasons and these reasons alone: the Christian homeschooling movement did not follow a state mandated curriculum and they had no way to legally validate a child's education. It wasn't that the parents across the board were not educated, many were, or that they weren't resourceful, or rich, many were, but it just wasn't enough as far as looking at the big picture, and my big picture included going to a four year college coming out of a school that prepared the child for college, which is the case for my youngest, he is graduating early and will be attending a four year next year pursuing a degree in Computer Science thanks to the online charter system, while it wasn't perfect in every way, we were able to make up for the flaws--thanks to my many teachers friends. I do think that if done right homeschooling can be a viable alternative-- if it's the right fit.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens

There are, as you say, many types of family in modern times; heterosexual, LGBT, single parent, adopted, etc. There's no guaranteed formula for success, and the love of a child isn't dependent on gender or sexual orientation. Well balanced, caring adults may come from atypical family units. The opposite may come from a 'traditional' upbringing.

I do get really tired of people suggesting that a man and a woman, creating life and raising a child together isn't 'the ideal' though. It's nature. It's the biological interaction between the opposite sexes. If it wasn't, there would be no such thing as gender, or we'd be a parthenogenetic species, or we'd all be hermaphroditic.

Embracing peoples' differences, and not making them feel outcasts from society is one thing. Totally denying nature to turn humankind into something its not, is another thing entirely.

I guess depending on how far you are going with this and depending on how you are defining 'ideal', I might disagree with this. What exactly makes a man and a woman creating and raising their child together ideal? I think you will find several studies that show more positive outcomes for children raised by their biological parents, although I'm pretty sure a few that show lesbian parents have a slight edge, but what do we think is unique to biological parents that can't be provided by a same sex parent? I have trouble coming up with anything that to me isn't pseudo-scientific conjecture ('children feel a greater 'bond' with their biological parent and somehow this makes their upbringing 'ideal') on my part, but I'm not a social scientist. And as I had mentioned in an earlier post, I wonder how much the large confounding factor of the existing prejudice and discrimination towards same sex parents and LGBT people/relationships is the cause of the supposed 'less than ideal' situation.

In addition it seems like a rather arbitrary line to draw or point out. Isn't it potentially more ideal actually for kids to be raised in a household where they have siblings, because of the additional social interaction? Or maybe it's actually worse because there is then less time for parents to spend with each child. When we get down to talking about actual people, I think this line is that much more difficult to tease out; if one of our 'ideal' biological parents is an alcoholic, then same sex parents are likely a better ideal in comparison. And we can keep coming up with situations and scenarios (parent works a lot and is largely absent, parents are poor, parents are selfish/apathetic, etc) like that which tip the balance, almost suggesting that the gender of the parents and whether they are biologically related isn't really that critical at all. I'd guess that a statement like 'biological parents are the ideal' is supposed to have something like 'all things being equal' appended to it when comparing to other families, but when we apply it to the real world, all things are never equal when comparing any two families.

If we're going to evaluate what's ideal then it seems like the first step would be to make the environment that same sex parents are raising their children in more ideal first. Then we can logically start looking at whether or not the gender/biological relationship of the parents is really relevant at all.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

I'm actually finding this debate intriguing, as I'm slightly - only slightly ;) - at odds with a lot of posters who I'm normally 100% in agreement with.

There are, as you say, many types of family in modern times; heterosexual, LBGT,single parent, adopted, etc. There's no guaranteed formula for success, and the love of a child isn't dependent on gender or sexual orientation. Well balanced, caring adults may come from atypical family units. The opposite may come from a 'traditional' upbringing.

I do get really tired of people suggesting that a man and a woman, creating life and raising a child together isn't 'the ideal' though. It's nature. It's the biological interaction between the opposite sexes. If it wasn't, there would be no such thing as gender, or we'd be a parthenogenetic species, or we'd all be hermaphroditic.

Embracing peoples' differences, and not making them feel outcasts from society is one thing. Totally denying nature to turn humankind into something its not, is another thing entirely.

Hi LV,

I think the formula is time, love, and quality of parenting, regardless of whether we have two moms, two dads, grandparents, step- parents, and transgender parents, etc.

I think the ones who are and have been taught to deny their nature is the LGBT community-- not the heterosexuals. I think this is what is harmful.

We do not live in a world that is exclusively heterosexual and trying to shun, ignore, ostracize, and protect from is not the way, it is to harmful, so it's time to accept and adapt and make room for our LGBT brothers and sisters.

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

I guess depending on how far you are going with this and depending on how you are defining 'ideal', I might disagree with this. What exactly makes a man and a woman creating and raising their child together ideal? I think you will find several studies that show more positive outcomes for children raised by their biological parents, although I'm pretty sure a few that show lesbian parents have a slight edge, but what do we think is unique to biological parents that can't be provided by a same sex parent? I have trouble coming up with anything that to me isn't pseudo-scientific conjecture ('children feel a greater 'bond' with their biological parent and somehow this makes their upbringing 'ideal') on my part, but I'm not a social scientist. And as I had mentioned in an earlier post, I wonder how much the large confounding factor of the existing prejudice and discrimination towards same sex parents and LGBT people/relationships is the cause of the supposed 'less than ideal' situation.

In addition it seems like a rather arbitrary line to draw or point out. Isn't it potentially more ideal actually for kids to be raised in a household where they have siblings, because of the additional social interaction? Or maybe it's actually worse because there is then less time for parents to spend with each child. When we get down to talking about actual people, I think this line is that much more difficult to tease out; if one of our 'ideal' biological parents is an alcoholic, then same sex parents are likely a better ideal in comparison. And we can keep coming up with situations and scenarios (parent works a lot and is largely absent, parents are poor, parents are selfish/apathetic, etc) like that which tip the balance, almost suggesting that the gender of the parents and whether they are biologically related isn't really that critical at all. I'd guess that a statement like 'biological parents are the ideal' is supposed to have something like 'all things being equal' appended to it when comparing to other families, but when we apply it to the real world, all things are never equal when comparing any two families.

If we're going to evaluate what's ideal then it seems like the first step would be to make the environment that same sex parents are raising their children in more ideal first. Then we can logically start looking at whether or not the gender/biological relationship of the parents is really relevant at all.

Gosh, LQ I was just siting here thinking that I think we are seeing the last hours of religious dogma, that this type of mindset is being challenged and outgrown.

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens

Gosh, LQ I was just siting here thinking that I think we are seeing the last hours of religious dogma, that this type of mindset is being challenged and outgrown.

I think you're right about that, its influence has definitely been reduced. The percentage of people who didn't agree that same sex marriage should be legalized around the time of the SC ruling that resolved that issue was still significant I think though; they may not be virulent in their disapproval of it, but 30% (?) of people who have that opinion I would guess would still have some negative effect on same sex parents and their children.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

I think you're right about that, its influence has definitely been reduced. The percentage of people who didn't agree that same sex marriage should be legalized around the time of the SC ruling that resolved that issue was still significant I think though; they may not be virulent in their disapproval of it, but 30% (?) of people who have that opinion I would guess would still have some negative effect on same sex parents and their children.

I truly didn't think I would ever see religious dogma be challenged so seriously, of course I don't think it will be an overnight change, but I think we are seeing the beginning stages of actual tolerance, in my state quite a bit since prop 8 was over turned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LV-426

I guess depending on how far you are going with this and depending on how you are defining 'ideal', I might disagree with this. What exactly makes a man and a woman creating and raising their child together ideal? I think you will find several studies that show more positive outcomes for children raised by their biological parents, although I'm pretty sure a few that show lesbian parents have a slight edge, but what do we think is unique to biological parents that can't be provided by a same sex parent? I have trouble coming up with anything that to me isn't pseudo-scientific conjecture ('children feel a greater 'bond' with their biological parent and somehow this makes their upbringing 'ideal') on my part, but I'm not a social scientist. And as I had mentioned in an earlier post, I wonder how much the large confounding factor of the existing prejudice and discrimination towards same sex parents and LGBT people/relationships is the cause of the supposed 'less than ideal' situation.

In addition it seems like a rather arbitrary line to draw or point out. Isn't it potentially more ideal actually for kids to be raised in a household where they have siblings, because of the additional social interaction? Or maybe it's actually worse because there is then less time for parents to spend with each child. When we get down to talking about actual people, I think this line is that much more difficult to tease out; if one of our 'ideal' biological parents is an alcoholic, then same sex parents are likely a better ideal in comparison. And we can keep coming up with situations and scenarios (parent works a lot and is largely absent, parents are poor, parents are selfish/apathetic, etc) like that which tip the balance, almost suggesting that the gender of the parents and whether they are biologically related isn't really that critical at all. I'd guess that a statement like 'biological parents are the ideal' is supposed to have something like 'all things being equal' appended to it when comparing to other families, but when we apply it to the real world, all things are never equal when comparing any two families.

If we're going to evaluate what's ideal then it seems like the first step would be to make the environment that same sex parents are raising their children in more ideal first. Then we can logically start looking at whether or not the gender/biological relationship of the parents is really relevant at all.

Phew! There's a lot of HUGE questions to address here! I'm not sure I can adequately address them all in a short post, especially seeing as it's past 1am here, but I'll give it a shot! :D

Firstly, by ideal, I mean children only exist through reproduction between a man and a woman - there's no denying the natural order of things here. In an ideal situation, where the parents are monogamous, and can provide a lasting, loving and nurturing environment for a child, the presence of male and female influence, in my opinion, gives the most balanced and natural upbringing. I just can't put it any other way than 'as nature intended.'

In my opinion, there also a stronger genetic bond with biological parents. I really don't want to head down this avenue of discussion though. I don't have a bunch of studies to wave at people, and I know that children are often given far better lives with adopted parents who chose to be a part of their lives, as opposed to biological parents who gave them nothing. I just know from personal experience that people I'm close to, have always felt that something is missing, regardless of how good an adoptive upbringing they had.

Now... I can practically hear the gnashing of teeth already from some quarters, but let me get to the point!

This is an ideal.

We don't live in an ideal world. We live in a world where children lose parents through natural and unnatural causes. We live in a world where adults don't establish their sexual identity until long after children become part of the equation. We live in a world where people have multiple relationships throughout their lives. We live in a world where science can to some degree turn men into women and women into men. We live in a world with a whole plethora of issues people deal with on a daily basis; domestic abuse, bullying, abandonment - a whole heap of crap that no child should have to endure.

Given that reality, I don't care what gender or sexual orientation parents are. If a child is raised in a happy, healthy, loving environment, nothing is more important.

I think the bottom line for me is that as a society we are constantly told to embrace the diversity of humanity. That's a good thing. I also think however that we shouldn't lose sight of the most basic things which, let's face it, brought us all into this world.

Just on the point of science and/or pseudo-science though. Isn't that what all of this equates to?

It certainly seems to me that science, in particular psychology, is dictated by what society considers 'normal', and it frequently changes throughout time. To me it just seems logical to look at the human race in its most primitive, natural and predictable manner, and use that as a baseline, regardless of how we adapt to the modern world.

Sorry... nearly 2am now, and there's a good chance I'm rambling :sleepy:

Basically, I don't think there's anything wrong with being 'different.' However, I also think there's nothing wrong with celebrating 'not being different.', even if it seems almost unfashionable these days.

Edited by LV-426
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Waziya Sioux

It would surprise you how much a man isnt safe in a woman restroom. . Women these days are just as bad as men.

Women violate men and men violate women .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.