Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Taken to its logical end, it is just a consumer market for parents to custom make their own child. But that is not how families work, their genetic code is in their off-spring, and most importantly they don't get to choose what type of child they have.
I don't care to pretend that a five year old child from Korea is the daughter of two white Portlanders. And I especially don't want homosexual couples adopting children and cosplaying as parents.
You have some very strange ideas. Are you adopted and unhappy about it?
Transgenders just want their new gender to be codified. That has already happened with adoptive families. The parents can parade around their kids as their own off-spring (and pretend genetics don't affect a child, just nurture) while giving them a surname and allowing all the legal rights that go with such title.
Of those who refuse to acknowledge the familial ties of adoptive children, how many had their lives ruined by actions of parents who adopt?
I must say I am not surprised to see a thread comparing adoptive parents/children and transgender men/women, but I AM surprised to see it coming from this direction.
I would have thought someone who was pro-trans recognition might start a thread saying something like, "We all agree that it is fine for adoptive parents to refer to the children they adopted as their sons or daughters even though they are not their biological offspring, so why should we not refer to transgendered men and women as the gender they identify with." But I didn't expect to find someone saying they will no more recognise adoptive parents as they would recognise trans men and women.
I didn't realise that people who were anti-adoption even existed. I find all sorts of fascinating viewpoints on the city-data politics forum.
A couple who adopts a child do not become a father or mother because of that. In the same way said child does not become their child. That is why we use the terms biological parents or biological children to differentiate between adopted children and adopted parents.
You cannot make a child who is not your own yours, no more than a child can make you their mother or father if you are not. But as a society we choose to ignore that difference and pretend it does not exist.
Transgenderism is the same way. A man cannot become a woman no more than a woman can become a man. But we can respect their decision and pretend it to be true while differentiating biological men and biological women from their pretend counterpart.
So if you have a scientific problem with transgenders, then you should have that same problem with adoptive children. Let me preface that I don't support transgenderism or adoption, but to support one but not the other seems hypocritical.
However, if you acknowledge a transgender as the opposite sex but dislike them for other reasons that is fine.
Compelling belief/speech is the problem.
Human nature requires us to differentiate between what is expected and reasonable, based on what we know to be true, and that which cannot be reconciled with what we know to be true.
It's not fool proof, but it does help us avoid trouble by quickly alerting us to people and situations that could be dangerous and require closer examination.
Normal looking/behaving people don't require closer scrutiny, but an obvious male with a five o'clock shadow wearing a skirt and lipstick does.
Of course, I care less what this person does, but when they demand that I entertain their fantasies by addressing them by their preferred pronoun, it gets a little irritating.
The hypocrisy in this case is someone that has rejected what they really are insisting that I accept that they are what they are pretending to be.
Taken to its logical end, it is just a consumer market for parents to custom make their own child. But that is not how families work, their genetic code is in their off-spring, and most importantly they don't get to choose what type of child they have.
In your opinion.
That doesn’t make you right.
As long as you aren’t being forced to do what you don’t believe in, why do you care if someone else chooses to believe in and act upon that thing that you don’t believe in ?
Quote:
I don't care to pretend that a five year old child from Korea is the daughter of two white Portlanders. And I especially don't want homosexual couples adopting children and cosplaying as parents.
Why? Do you fear that they will ‘teach the child to be gay’ ?
Is one man and one woman the only parenting option that is acceptable to you ?
Why is pretending someone with no kids is a father/mother or giving a person with no blood relations to that family their surname any different from pretending a man is a woman or a woman is a man?
It is just a game of pretend. As for the adopted children, there is a difference between fostering a child and pretending they are your child and telling them they are no different from biological off-springs.
And ideally, you don't want parentless children at all, that should be the goal I hope.
What prompted you to look at adopted children the way that you do ?
I must say I am not surprised to see a thread comparing adoptive parents/children and transgender men/women, but I AM surprised to see it coming from this direction.
I would have thought someone who was pro-trans recognition might start a thread saying something like, "We all agree that it is fine for adoptive parents to refer to the children they adopted as their sons or daughters even though they are not their biological offspring, so why should we not refer to transgendered men and women as the gender they identify with." But I didn't expect to find someone saying they will no more recognise adoptive parents as they would recognise trans men and women.
I didn't realise that people who were anti-adoption even existed. I find all sorts of fascinating viewpoints on the city-data politics forum.
I didn’t either.
I’ve encountered some well educated, well off professional people who think that single people shouldn’t adopt, but that isn’t the same thing. That’s about defining who should adopt, not being against adoption as a whole.
I'm not sure what your point is. Why would you feel forced to accept them? How would you even know whether someone is adopted or not?
How is someone's adoptive status being forced in your face?
Take an adoptive girl for example. You refer to her as 'she' 'her' 'miss' and so on. That would be exactly the same as a biological girl. In fact, that same adoptive girl is a biological girl. Someone fathered her and someone gave birth to her. Likewise with a boy.
Where does the problem lie?
In that case what problem do you have with transgenders? And don't say they are aggressive politically because if they weren't the same would apply.
If you see a transgender you might not know they were transgender unless they disclosed that information. You could go by assuming that man was a woman, etc.
Having a child that looks nothing like their parents is visually identifiable from a mile away. And I don't think it is healthy for people to associate a non-related child purchased like some puppy at a kennel to be a biological off-spring.
Innocent children who are in foster care because of no fault of their own and who wish to be adopted by a loving family who will care for them has absolute nothing to do with transgender people who choose to be a different gender because that's their choice.
The fact that you don't believe in adoption just blows by mind. In the US alone there are thousands of children without parents in the foster care system who would do anything for a loving safe home and family. As a society I believe in helping children as all children are blessings regardless. As you are aware, there are only such a small amount of people who actually have a heart that are willing to welcome and adopt children into their home. Children are blessings regardless if they are biological or not. Family doesnt have to be blood. My definition of family is anyone who loves you and cares for you which is why I made some of my friends become my family. If you raise a child and they aren't biological then I'm sorry to tell you but that's your child and biological children are no different then adopted ones, the love is still there and is the same.
You are a heartless person and the world needs less of you. You will not understand until you realize to be more open minded.
I'm sure it makes all sorts of sense to you OP but most people don't think the way you do
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anti-adoption is a thing?
