Insanity

No, you cannot equate race with something that is not naturally occurring.

 

Oh, except it is perfectly natural. Of course there is no actual definition of that word.

 

Dysmorphic claims are currently the most effective way for those addled by one or more of the myriad of attention seeking disorders to satiate their compulsion.

 

And, why should we worry about something that is harmless?

 

Based on......

 

]

It is bad for someone to entertain the notion that they're anything other than what their biological gender is and to try force others to validate such nonsense. There are only two genders, everything else is lunacy. It is bad when one mutilates one's self in an delusional attempt to challenge nature. It is bad when such unbalanced individuals procreate and create another generation of dysfunctional people who in turn will cheat another generation out of a rational normal life.

 

Except no expert cares. In fact the only people who care are people who are struggling with their sexuality, or outright bigots. his is a trend I have been seeing in left/right politics. Left: We want these people not to suffer horribly Right: Yeah, but I don't suffer those problems and that would be the tiniest bit inconvenient to me.

 

actually, let's find the silver lining in all of this.

the population growth has been out of control, the planet won't be able to handle this exponential growth for much longer, it will result is world wars and atrocities. See the chart below, this is scary. If this growth would be attributable to any other species, we would be controlling population #'s via brutal measures but because we are special and have a 'soul' we can just continue to spread like a virus.

So, the more gays, trans... the less births.. technically trans can have kids but chances are, the more trans and the more gays, it's an effective way to control population growth

 

Extremely bleak and probably not realistic point, but I like it.

 

The OP assumes the purpose of any and all behavior can only be justified by collectivist approval or collectivist servitude. How can you frame this question for those of us who do not follow such assumptions?

 

You are literally making a mountain out of a mole hill and that's to the extent this is an 'issue' at all. Firstly, the best research we have indicates that fewer that 0.6% of the (US) population identifies as transgender. So all other factors being taken into the equation (like cost and the likelihood of both partners in the relationship being transgender etc) there is zero chance this type of family will ever be more than an outlier in terms of family structures.

Secondly as regards to whether this behavior is wholesome? That will depend on how well the family raises the child and speaking from personal experience there is a far higher % of 'gendered' parents who raise children in damaging, abusive environments than their will ever be trans families. So worry about the haystack before looking for the needle.

Thirdly the birth and the arrangements around it is just that, one birth among millions that would have occurred about the same time - end of story. It neither makes the world better or worse, it just is. I would suggest instead that the question of whether or not it makes the world a better place will actually depend on how well the child is raised as per my second point above.

Lastly, nothing says you have to like or agree with what this family did. You have a right to your own opinions on the subject just as they do. The fact that both sides disagree changes nothing about the event itself.

 

Not to mention they serve the interests of certain medical professionals, who do have boat payments to make, after all.

Maybe we should look for a silver lining in Mengele's research while we're at it.

No there isn't, because the percentage of such "parents" who don't raise their children in toxic environments is zero.

 

To clarify are you suggesting that all parents raise their children in a toxic environment (to a greater or lesser degree) or that all trans gender parents will by default raise their children in a toxic environment. For the moment I assume you mean the latter rather than the former. I will also assume you that, unlike the case mentioned in the original post the same applies to any couple where at one member is transgender.

If so you will have a tough call proving your assertion. Allowing for the possibility you are correct where are your facts?

 

Where's your facts?????

 

Correct.

Doesn't matter whether I can or not, because it's true.

"Transgender" people, not knowing who they are, are insane ipso facto. Insane people constantly carry with them a toxic atmosphere, wherefore any child reared under the same roof with such a person will be reared in a toxic atmosphere.

QED, and you're welcome.

 

You rebel you!!! The sane world works by consensus. For those of you out there in alternative land, how can you think that challenging nature or rather mocking it in this way is not damaging to children who are also exposed to natural normal behaviors. They have to reconcile their parent's freakish nature against the overwhelming majority of normal society. You have to consider such things in spite of your disdain for convention.

 

Really? Where's your proof?

 

Fact - the % of people who identify as trans is barely .5 % of the US population (source available) and this was used as a template for the rest of the Western World.
Fact - given there is no overriding reason (identified to date) compelling transgenders to enter relationships exclusively with other trans as opposed to gendered partners. By default then the type of relationship described in the first post (trans with trans) is going to be a small % of that already small percentage.
Fact - given the relatively recent rise of transgender (and for that matter gay) parenting there is insufficient data available as yet to identify the negative consequences (if any) of growing up as a member of a trans family as opposed to a gendered family. Or for that matter that the % of trans families subject to welfare interventions is higher than that in gendered families.
Fact - Research indicates trans gender family members do appear to suffer a higher incident of domestic /sexual violence while in relationships than non-trans but at the same time relatively few trans couples actually have children living with them. In the event a trans 'family' does suffer from domestic violence issues the impact on the child is likely to be severe, but no more so that in any non-trans family. Again the sample group of such children is so small statistics on the abuse of children in trans relationships as opposed to gendered relationships are unavailable. (I did look.)

So again - you can agree or disagree with the concept of trans gender families raising children but getting 'facts' to support the argument that it will have negative outcomes for the children concerned is another thing all together. The numbers are simply to small to judge and are likely to remain so for some considerable time.

 

The "sane" world only works by consensus according to those who reject individualism and who also don't understand the elementary logical concept that the argument from convention is not a reasonable argument. Convention is not, by itself, a virtue. Nor is abandoning itself, by itself, a vice. You'll have to think harder. Most people who grasp concepts of rudimentary reason are capable of comprehending that much.

 

Well that's easy then, since you know its true and facts aren't necessary there's no real reason to discuss it further then is there?

Sorry to disappoint but being transgender by itself does not meet any internationally recognized clinical or scientific definition of Insanity. So at this point I'll simply just say that I know this is true. And since that argument is good enough for you it must by default be good enough for me. So we can stop here.

 

I really don’t know how that will make the world a better place, but I will guarantee that kid will be bullied in school when word gets out.

 

So you can guarantee how a bunch of knuckle-dragging idiots will make the worse a worse place because they lack rational and emotional intelligence when facing something novel. Great. So now that we've established why the idiots are the problem, why use idiots to attack the object of their idiocy? Shouldn't we be criticizing the actual idiots instead?

 

Quite possibly, but so will other students for other reasons. After that it's just up to how the the school and family respond to incidents of bullying. (Plus how well the child concerned learns to throw a punch.)

 

It's almost as if rational human beings should realize it is the bullies who are the problem in these situations. Who knew?

 

Is that a compliment?