Ouch. I'd be interested in hearing more about why you think it is less than ideal and even wrong in some situations.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
Printable View
Ouch. I'd be interested in hearing more about why you think it is less than ideal and even wrong in some situations.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
Gender matters. Some (many ? a number anyway) benefit from having a specific gender as parent, specifically a man, especially a father, in their house during formative years. For many reasons this is optimal, not the least of which is to learn to relate appropriately to persons of male gender.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reyes
There is the research that shows the single common characteristic of the prison population is a lack of father in their home. Not poverty. Not race. Not age. Lack of father.
I think that is significant.
I cant say that the extreme lack of fatherless homes has been of benefit to the underclass here in my crime ridden city.
not all children are the same and there are kids out there who long for fathers. Others dont care much about that factor. One size doesnt fit all, but I despair that Nanny G will get it right. Children who end up inthe social welfare system are probably screwed anyway.
I wonder how much of this is expectations. My mother grew up in Nazi Germany when all the men were away at war and few came back. She had no TV to show her other family structures and assumed it was normal to not have a father because none of the other kids had one around either. She has led a good life, but her older sister, who remembered her dad from prewar days, has struggled with depression, alcoholism, and other serious issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
Is the research addressing gay parent households? I think there is a difference between an absence father (or mother) when there is one, versus having two moms or two dads.
It all hinges on expectations. I can’t see what gender has to do with it. Is the interaction masculine or feminine? There are plenty of women who turn wrenches and plenty of men who do traditionally feminine things. If you look at LGBT relationships you’ll find the traits of traditional male/female roles. Kids are smart enough to figure it out along the way. As long as someone is is their life guiding them in their moral choices. I am happy to see anyone wanting to share their life with a child...no matter their sexual orientation. I have interviewed and interrogated plenty of criminal minds. Absentee or abusive parents are a common denominator.
This is hitting pretty close to home for me.
my heartdaughter is bi. Her husband beat her. The state of Kentucky gave him their son 4 weekdays a week. He is making decisions that are harmful to the child (denial of educational services, denial of medical services, blocking legally required communication between the school and my heart daughter) things any normal human being would expect the court to consider in reopening a custody decision. The child loves his father, and in the absence of bruises, his mom supports that, she would never keep them apart.
but she can’t go back to court. She is now living with her girlfriend of 5 years, who fills the traditional “father” roll for their boy far better than his actual father. And she is fairly certain that rather than gaining enough control to get him the help he needs, she would lose him entirely.
after years of teaching, I will tell you, children need good men in their lives, and they need good women, and they need people who think that they are the most important things in the world, and they need those people to be their “parents” even if they are actually their grandparents, or their aunts or uncles or their older siblings. And I think they also benefit from androgynous and non binary roll models.
my bio Dd asked me once when she was in college “why did you never tell me that all of my heroines were lesbians?” And I said “ because it didn’t matter at first, and if you turned out to be straight (she did) I didn’t want you to identify with them less. They were good roll models.”
Thank you for posting this, Chicken Lady. You said it better than i could.
There are all kinds of families, most of them lacking in some way--i came up in a time of mostly uninvolved fathers--but it seems to me the important thing is that children get lots of love and support from the people who matter to them, regardless of gender.
I doubt gay parents were included but who knows. i heard the author of this research on NPR a few years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reyes
If you mean a kid had a daddy in his life who then abandoned him, sure, that would do a number on the kid's head.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
If all kinds of families are ok I wonder why social work standards exist at all, then. But again, you all know my opinion of Nanny G's ability to successfully socially engineer ANYTHING whether at a micro or macro level, so whatever.
Edited to add: dont forget, my discussion is in the context of foster parents for foster children. I just mentioned that research study because it was relevant to the gubmnt's position of cutting off agencies that provide only parental units made up of two genders.
In general, I believe all kinds of families are OK, as long as they're loving and supportive. That's why so many people cobble them together from scratch. And I'm pretty skeptical of governmental oversight in these matters--it often seems to do more harm than good. But it's what we have.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
I think the standards exist to assure safety, competence, and commitment to care. In that sense “all kinds of families” are not ok. Abusive families, neglectful families, probably families with untreated severe mental illness - not ok.
Someone adding children to a to a family to which they currently have no connection when that family does not have the time or space or resources to care for them - not ok.
but sizes and shapes and color and gender and marital status don’t mater to a kid at all compared to safety, love, security, support, belonging.... Heck, kids will chose love over safety every time.
love makes a family. Everything else is relative(s) ;)
While i agree that government oversight in this area is not necessarily that great as it exists currently the alternative would be worse. My grandfather, a little over 100 years ago lived through that. He'd been orphaned at a very young age and spent his childhood being shuffled among reluctant relatives who were resentful and abusive. Eventually he decided to do the only thing he could to stop it. He found a job, dropped out of school, and set off to make his way in the world. At age 11.
Ah, I missed that. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
My grandfather also left home to support himself at the age of 11. His mother had died, and his father remarried an abusive stepmother, and he left. So even though his father was on the scene, it did not make up for the abusive stepmother.
Well, today brings a happy bit of news....
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/21/u...efinition.html
There seems to be no end to the damage he and his henchmen can wreak.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
This is just cruel - throwing a bunch of marginalized, at-risk people to the wolves just to inflame his base.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
https://www.algbtical.org/triangle003.jpg
The Nation published an article recently, titled "For Trump, Cruelty Is the Point; The White House’s immigration policies are designed to maximize suffering."
And that goes for his entire agenda, IMO.
Well this is terrible news.
I will never understand why it's anybody's business (and especially a political matter) what our sexual preferences are - as long as it involves two consenting people that aren't children. We are so hung up in this country that it feels like we are moving backwards.
Free secular societies don't care who is boffing who as long as all are consenting adults.Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkytoe
But theocracies have a shit fit about people doing gay stuff. God no likey the guy on guy action.
And secular totalitarians -- who make themselves into national gods -- need scapegoats and minorities to vilify. It keeps the sheeple from focusing on real issues, like civil liberties.
As I understand it, the idea is to define gender "on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable", as opposed to the variable definition instituted by the previous administration. I'm unclear how this throws anyone to the wolves.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
People get sex change operations and then the law says that they cannot use the bathrooms etc for their new gender.
Once you get a bias involved, science is mutable. You can get some scientist somewhere to say anything you want, IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
It wasn't so long ago that doctors just arbitrarily assigned genders to intersex babies; they may still be doing it. Some of the stories emerging around this are tragic. Science is a tool, sometimes a blunt one.
And i’m not surprised that you don’t understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I have little faith that the administration, given their commitment to scientific integrity, will actually dig deeply enough to formulate something fair and reasonable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
For instance, I have odd genetics, and both male and female sexual components. You can see it in the DNA, or with intimate physical examination. Some decades ago, I might simply have been aborted, or "assigned" a gender at birth through surgery without my consent.
The article claims: "The agency’s proposed definition would define sex as either male or female, unchangeable, and determined by the genitals that a person is born with, according to a draft reviewed by The Times.". This does not to me to be a policy based in scientific reality.
How does the government, in its infinite wisdom, account for endocrine abnormalities or genetic chimerism, for example? I suspect this is another of Trump's edicts designed primarily to torment people.
As does my grandson with Klinefelter Syndrome, or 47,XXY. He is sterile, does not produce testosterone as a typical male should and has a micro-penis and slightly enlarged breasts but he is definitely a boy. Interestingly enough, some medical researchers believe that George Washington was also a 47 XXY as he had all the physical characteristics (history is thankfully ignorant on the micro-penis part) and had no known offspring, although there is no question that he was also a male.Quote:
Originally Posted by bae
Now often parents of these babies are no longer encouraged to pick a gender and do surgery but to wait and see which sex the child acts like, etc so the correct gender is chosen. Many heartbreaking stories when surgery was done on babies.
Indeed. A friend of mine had to, as an adult, sue her childhood doctors to get her medical records. She found out that the "stomach" surgery she had when she was 3 was genital modification surgery and she went from being Charlie to being Cheryl and her family moved to a new town shortly after that. She went on to found the Intersex Society of North America. They put together an interesting documentary with a group of intersex individuals talking about their life experiences. They mostly seemed to have been deeply traumatized by their experiences. The one exception, a woman in her early 20's, had avoided that fate because her intersexness had not been discovered by someone else when she was young, but instead, was discovered by herself as a teenager. Because of this she had never gone through the trauma of unwanted surgery. She has both a penis and a vagina and identifies as female. I have no idea what her chromosomes would say she is under the administration's proposal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
Me neither. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Quote:
Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
The only not surprise I see is your assumption of facts not in evidence.
JP, what a interesting story and so glad it worked out for her. Stories like that are why the administrations stance is so wrong
An interesting read might be Fausto-Sterling's:
https://libcom.org/files/imagecache/...g_the_body.jpg
I personally know two men who transitioned to women. Several lesbian and gay couples. Probably more I have no idea they are not in a monogamous heterosexual relationship. For the life of me I cannot understand why anyone feels they have a right to judge, criticize, interfere in the lives Of grownups who are not hurting anyone Two men who live in my son’s neighborhood are raising three adopted boys and you won’t find two more dedicated and involved parents. The kids are thriving in school, with friends and in life.
All of them worked hard hard their whole lives, are nice individuals, and have no idea of trying to convert anyone. Basically good human beings.
Hate is carefully taught and obviously some people are afraid, just plain mean, or ignorant. Or just plain hateful. Get over yourself. Homosexuality and cross dressing, so called effeminate behavior in men and masculine behavior in women or whatever has been going on since Moby Dick was a minnow. Maybe they just feel threatened by their own lack of masculinity or femininity.
this must be heartbreaking as there are so many mean people in this world, even as he brings your family great joy. Dealing with this makes me surprised in your posts here. You may be the greatest dad, husband and gramps, but your empathy often doesn’t show. Surely your family has benefitted from some help from social programs the republicans so much want to stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
The Klinefelter Syndrome is such a minor part of who he is we barely notice it. The heartbreaking part is his other chromosomal disorder, Trisomy 9 Mosaic.Quote:
Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere
As for social programs, the only beneficial program to date (he's currently 21 years old) has been a state program which allowed him to stay in school until the age of 21 where his social skills were greatly enhanced. There are Federal programs which mainly seem designed to relieve the family from responsibility for his care although there's not a single person in his extended family willing to go that route. He continues to live at home and spends a day or two here each week as well as another day or two with his other grandparents which ensures that he has continuous care by people who love him.
I think that your (and several others) comment(s) about my empathy are unfounded, unless your definition of empathy requires an abandonment of personal responsibility. I believe government interference is a poor substitute for a loving family.
Alan, vocational rehabilitation is a federal program administered by the states. Look into it. They help people with disabilities obtain employment congruent with their disability. They provide job coaching that fades out and natural supports in the work place. There also are sheltered workshops depending on the persons capabilities. It changes life’s no matter where the person lives.
We are all well aware of those programs, some of which were part of his extended educational program which ended last year. Working, beyond basic personal maintenance, just doesn't seem to be something he's capable of doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
Sheltered workshops are places that people with severe disabilities find very rewarding.