Transgender man wants to be named as father...

DEFTLEFTHAND

Can you imagine the child in all of this.

It's going to be a confusing childhood. Me Ma me's Da.

Franz Von Peppercorn

wexie wrote: »

the hell just happened to that post?

Dunno. I replied fairly quickly and it has disappeared.

wexie

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Dunno. I replied fairly quickly and it has disappeared.

very strange, not really the kinda thing a mod would see a need to remove either afaik

mdwexford

The inmates are running the asylum.

TheValeyard

mdwexford wrote: »

The inmates are running the asylum.

Asylum has burned down at this stage

GreeBo

neris wrote: »

this gender stuff is getting out of hand

My hand identifies as a foot, so I'd prefer if you said "this gender stuff is getting out of limb" as I find it offensive otherwise.

One eyed Jack

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Biology can’t itself “describe” mothers and fathers because it isn’t a person. The human science of biology does categorise animals who sexually reproduce into mothers and fathers. Any intelligent alien species who similarly reproduce (and most would) would have similar nomenclature. Of course to cultural relativists because we have to name something to communicate this thing then becomes a construction, but nobody can take that seriously as literally everything is therefore a construct.

You're kinda hitting it in spots as to what is relative to culture and social constructs and communication of our ideas, and in that sense the language we use to describe what we observe is indeed a socially constructed product relative to culture. Different cultures have long recognised a third gender.

We fight against biological realities but they, to begin with, still remain biological realities. And if we change the biology then that’s science intervening. A man with an artificial hip is part bionic but hips still exist as a biological reality.

We're not changing biology though, the point is that we're challenging biology through observing reality, and then altering that reality, so whereas at one point in time I would have had to live with a gammy hip, I no longer have to, because of scientific and medical advances. Effectively we're overcoming our own biological limitations, and that's the idea behind transhumanism.

I wouldn't immediately consider an artificial hip replacement a great example of bionics as it hasn't enhanced my human capabilities, but I know what you meant at least -


Definition of bionic
1
: of or relating to bionics
2
: having normal biological capability or performance enhanced by or as if by electronic or electromechanical devices

If we ever get to a time where we can’t tell a post op trans woman from a woman that doesn’t mean that biological women don’t exist, or that this now biological woman wasn’t once a biological man.

Of course not, and I would never suggest otherwise. What I'm suggesting is that we are now already at that point, and the law has to catch up with advances in medical and scientific technology to reflect current reality so that in the future cases like this aren't a big deal for people who don't align neatly with our categorisation of a species based solely on sexually dimorphic reproductive capacity.

Women who are infertile for example previously had no capacity to reproduce, and now they can, thanks to developments in modern medicine, science and technology. It doesn't mean they weren't women because they couldn't reproduce due to biological realities which have now been overcome by science and technology, and the law needs to catch up in the area of surrogacy and assisted reproduction to reflect that biological reality, or what has at least now become a biological reality.

2 Scoops

It's pretty sickening political and media types will push their twisted ideological at the expense of entertaining delusion whilst ignoring realities based in science. Those who genuinely feel like they have a problem I'm not rallying against, it's the types like the story in the OP, or parents deciding which gender their pre pubescent child should, or the social science university types making up all these crazy genders and teaching make believe courses based on them. The whole thing I find repugnant attention seeking honestly and as a result many kids are going to grow up having major problems.

Franz Von Peppercorn

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're kinda hitting it in spots as to what is relative to culture and social constructs and communication of our ideas, and in that sense the language we use to describe what we observe is indeed a socially constructed product relative to culture. Different cultures have long recognised a third gender.

Different cultures believe a lot of stuff. Science isn’t just a culture. I’ll find that pinker quote in a minute.

We're not changing biology though, the point is that we're challenging biology through observing reality, and then altering that reality, so whereas at one point in time I would have had to live with a gammy hip, I no longer have to, because of scientific and medical advances. Effectively we're overcoming our own biological limitations, and that's the idea behind transhumanism.

The very fact that you have to change the biology means the biology reflects reality. This is a world away from it being a construct to begin with.

I wouldn't immediately consider an artificial hip replacement a great example of bionics as it hasn't enhanced my human capabilities, but I know what you meant at least -


Definition of bionic
1
: of or relating to bionics
2
: having normal biological capability or performance enhanced by or as if by electronic or electromechanical devices

A fairly quick google by myself returns nothing about enhanced performance. Why the pedantry though? Even if you were right it’s not adding much to your argument.

The google search for bionic returns

having or denoting an artificial, typically electromechanical, body part or parts.

Of course not, and I would never suggest otherwise. What I'm suggesting is that we are now already at that point, and the law has to catch up with advances in medical and scientific technology to reflect current reality so that in the future cases like this aren't a big deal for people who don't align neatly with our categorisation of a species based solely on sexually dimorphic reproductive capacity.

Personally I don’t think science is anywhere close to the thought experiment I presented about a post op being indistinguishable from a woman but it doesn’t matter in this case because the biological reality at birth was that the birth mother was a biological she.

Women who are infertile for example previously had no capacity to reproduce, and now they can, thanks to developments in modern medicine, science and technology. It doesn't mean they weren't women because they couldn't reproduce due to biological realities which have now been overcome by science and technology, and the law needs to catch up in the area of surrogacy and assisted reproduction to reflect that biological reality, or what has at least now become a biological reality.

That’s because there are multiple biological reasons beyond ability to give birth that distinguish a biological man from a biological woman.

This is a world away from gender anyway. Which isn’t, we are told, biological.

One eyed Jack

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Different cultures believe a lot of stuff. Science isn’t just a culture. I’ll find that pinker quote in a minute.

It had better not be anything related to his promotion of evolutionary psychology, because that's entirely based upon presenting cultural biases as scientific theories.

The very fact that you have to change the biology means the biology reflects reality. This is a world away from it being a construct to begin with.

But nobody is changing biology here. It's simply the terminology is changing, the biology remains the same. How we describe reality is changing, because we are now observing the nature of reality is changing, and the laws which are informed by society and culture will have to change. Biology remains the same, laws can be changed.

A fairly quick google by myself returns nothing about enhanced performance. Why the pedantry though? Even if you were right it’s not adding much to your argument.

I wasn't intending it to be pedantic, I meant it as an example of how definitions are formed by language which is a cultural construct. Language changes all the time. That was from the Merriam Webster dictionary btw, I should have provided the source and it might have made my point clearer. As another example remember when gay used to mean happy? Nowadays in Western culture most people associate the term gay with ones sexual orientation.

Personally I don’t think science is anywhere close to the thought experiment I presented about a post op being indistinguishable from a woman but it doesn’t matter in this case because the biological reality at birth was that the birth mother was a she.

It's not a thought experiment any more. Advances in medicine, science and technology are at the point now where a post-op transgender woman is indistinguishable from someone who was born a woman at birth. Unless you're suggesting that everyone remove their clothing so you can be certain, you're unlikely to be able to distinguish between someone who has altered their outward appearance with medical intervention, and someone who has developed that way naturally.

The reason it absolutely matters in this case is because of the legal implications. We aren't speaking in the context of science, we're speaking in the context of legal and social implications whereby a person who was previously legally recognised as a woman is now legally recognised as a man, and now wishes to be legally recognised as a father.

It's all about legal recognition, not science or biology.

That’s because there are multiple biological reasons beyond ability to give birth that distinguish a biological man from a woman.

Yes there are, and so to follow that argument to it's logical conclusion, then identification as either a woman or a man isn't solely limited to biology or a persons reproductive capacity.

This is a world away from gender anyway. Which isn’t, we are told, biological.

It's not a world away from gender, but rather it's a world away from our previous understanding of biology, and if science is based upon observation, then we must acknowledge this new information which informs us about the nature of reality. This case isn't something that can be addressed in the realm of science, but rather it can only be addressed in the legal realm, which is informed by society and culture.

evolving_doors

Who cares really.

The kid finds out that he was borne from a woman who changed to a man.
Kid deals with it and moves on.... meanwhile there are still people outraged in this thread.

Life's too short.

The planet is dying anyway, it's all just rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.

Everyone dies.

The needle returns to the end of the song and we all sing along as before.

c montgomery

Attention seaking freak !
Feel sorry for the child.

TheValeyard

evolving_doors wrote: »

The planet is dying anyway, it's all just rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.

Everyone dies.

The needle returns to the end of the song and we all sing along as before.

Planets not dying, just becoming less hospitable for us. We may die out, but planet will live on, survive and florish.

conorhal

evolving_doors wrote: »

Who cares really.

The kid finds out that he was borne from a woman who changed to a man.
Kid deals with it and moves on.... meanwhile there are still people outraged in this thread.

Life's too short.

The planet is dying anyway, it's all just rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.

Everyone dies.

The needle returns to the end of the song and we all sing along as before.

Because what the world needs now more than ever is your fatalism. Lie down croppy, lie down.
You sound like an Emo teen. We're all DOOMED so why shouldn't reality be just another casualty of our state of decay!

evolving_doors

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

Planets not dying, just becoming less hospitable for us. We may die out, but planet will live on, survive and florish.

True that.
It's all relative I suppose. You could say mars is flourishing now.

evolving_doors

c montgomery wrote: »

Attention seaking freak !
Feel sorry for the child.

Why?

evolving_doors

conorhal wrote: »

Because what the world needs now more than ever is your fatalism. Lie down croppy, lie down.
You sound like an Emo teen. We're all DOOMED so why shouldn't reality be just another casualty of our state of decay!

Meh! The kid probably doesn't care as long as his parents love them.
I'd care more about the child dying on the streets in India while they work hard on their space program, or child soldiers in Africa, or kids in Ireland with f'ckd up scoliosis in agony on a waiting list.
Other kids are more deserving of our outrage.

TheValeyard

evolving_doors wrote: »

True that.
It's all relative I suppose. You could say mars is flourishing now.

Or Mars is in recovery mode! Slowly healing....

c montgomery

evolving_doors wrote: »

Why?

Attention seeking nutjob parent.

Signore Fancy Pants

This post has been deleted.

evolving_doors

c montgomery wrote: »

Attention seeking nutjob parent.

So what.
Plenty of the above, no matter what the gender orientation.

conorhal

evolving_doors wrote: »

Meh! The kid probably doesn't care as long as his parents love them.
I'd care more about the child dying on the streets in India while they work hard on their space program, or child soldiers in Africa, or kids in Ireland with f'ckd up scoliosis in agony on a waiting list.
Other kids are more deserving of our outrage.

You don't care though. You just like to virtue signal that you do while wallowing in ennui. Which is the sure fire sign of a narcissist desperate for attention
I however, really don't care.

griffin100

Whenever these threads come up I always think of this scene.........

mayobumblebee

i do wonder why he wants his past eradicated. i can understand he wants to live now as a man fine off with him but as a biological woman she carried that child for nine months and gave birth to the child. The child has every right to look at his or her medical records, does this parent want them changed so that his own child would have incorrect medical charts? is that not a breach of the childs rights to know their true parents and also to know there own medical history. As a parent he should come to terms with the fact thats its no longer about him. the bigger picture is about the child he created with the biological father. should he not be listed at all? so the child would never know its true father or true mother because this man wants to erase the fact of how he was born. the mind boggles.
medically he will still need different treatments and medical attention because he will alway be biolocally female ie overaries, mammory glands etc.

shamrock55

Your a woman get over yourself ffs

Billy86

evolving_doors wrote: »

Who cares really.

The kid finds out that he was borne from a woman who changed to a man.
Kid deals with it and moves on.... meanwhile there are still people outraged in this thread.

Life doesn't move on though, and it's because that kid has adults pointing and making angry comments at their parent throughout their childhood, shouting 'freak!' and so on at them, and then turning around and feigning that they 'feel sorry' for the child for being in a 'difficult circumstance'.

There's some seriously dark irony in there.

Billy86

Skullface McGubbin wrote: »

I thought about that question too. Then I realized that with Leftists/Progressives and their causes, there is no "too far". There is only "too soon" .


Liberal: We want the right to X


Conservative: Are you crazy? Why would you want that? If you get X, you will probably want Y & Z later on. Do you really think such things are acceptable?


Liberal: Of course we don't want Y or Z. We only just want X. Don't use that slippery slope fallacy.



Liberals get X. Then 10 years later...


Liberal: We want the right to Y


Conservative: Are you mad? why would you want that? If you get Y then what's going to stop you from demanding Z. Do you think Z is acceptable?


Liberal: Of course we don't want Z. We only just want Y. DUDE SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY LMAO.


Liberals get Y. Then about 10 years later


Liberal: We want the right to Z...


Well, you get the idea.

And here's an example of that in action:

X - homosexual acts are no longer illegal (1993)
Y - gay couples are allowed enter civil partnerships (2009)
Z - gay couples are allowed to marry (2015).

Disgusting carry on from them altogether, I think we can all agree. Shouldn't those damn liberals just be happy that gay people are no longer breaking any laws by riding each other? Sure they'll be wanting inseminated gay women to have access to abortions next...

c montgomery

evolving_doors wrote: »

So what.
Plenty of the above, no matter what the gender orientation.

So i feel sorry for the child

_Kaiser_

These attempts at historical and biological revisionism are getting more extreme and bizzaire by the week.

As I've said before.. You are born male or female. That's it. You can later feel/believe that you were born as the wrong one and decide to live as the other and that's fine. If you choose to take surgical steps to reinforce the change that's also fine. If you ask people to treat you as your assumed gender and call you by a preferred name that again is perfectly fine.

But it doesn't change the reality that you were born as something else, nor does it mean that you have the right to be offended if others don't always recognise or celebrate your decisions, and nor does it mean that you are now biologically and otherwise indistinguishable from a (for want of a better term) "original" man/woman.

And in this case, this individual should be spending more time thinking about the welfare of their child rather than their personal crusade. Male or female, any parent should be putting their child's interests first.

Captain Obvious

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

And in this case, this individual should be spending more time thinking about the welfare of their child rather than their personal crusade. Male or female, any parent should be putting their child's interests first.

How do you think this will negatively affect the child?