Following the news articles popping up on various sites about the Lobel family have really got me thinking about my whole belief stances with respect to the one part of LGBT that I haven't managed to sort into a for or against box yet.
I think this will mark the first actually serious article on this blog. Good thing it's got limited readership.
For the record, I fully and completely support LGBT rights and protections in the work place, on the street, and at home. I support rights to spousal privileges, such as spousal benefit with life/disability/workers comp, and pretty much anything else going. Except same-sex adoption/families. I understand it, and I believe in the concept. I just have never been sure it could work, and because of this, I have not been able to include it in my list of "fully and completely."
Also for the record, I don't know the Lobel family, will probably never know the Lobel family, and I am sticking strictly with my own thoughts and feelings on their particular issue at hand. I am presenting my own viewpoints, and I sincerely hope that nobody reading this thinks that I am criticizing them. I'm not. I do not, nor will ever, tell another parent how to raise their children. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in child psychology, gender dysphoria, or anything else.
I will eventually discuss the story below after giving my beliefs. I don't mean to sound without compassion or empathy, but I also don't want to be specific to this family - they deserve better than to be singled out. I apologise in advance for any offense you may take for my lack of names, pronouns, and use of third-person common nouns.
I think that handles introduction and disclaimer.
I'm sure I sound old fashioned, outdated, and quite possibly out of touch with modern society when I say that I believe in the balance of the stereotypical traditional family. I believe that for any family to function, there needs to be a solid balance in everything. A balance between nurture and discipline, guidance and self-discovery, give and take, the list goes on. In short, everything that the arch-typical mom and dad respectively provide. I have spent a great deal of time in the last two years being concerned about my own children because I'm not the stereotypical dad.
That'll work for my premise.
My own observances of single parent families have told me that a single mom will tend to have children that are wild, undiciplined, believing that things are owed to them. A single dad is showing me that their children tend to be apathetic, non-empathetic, believing they can take what they want. I admit my sample is very limited, but I work with what I have, and what I have supports my premise.
I understand that every person is different, and many if not most of the people out there don't fit the stereotype mold perfectly. But the stereotype exists because enough evidence has existed throughout human kind to allow such rash and general conclusions. I did some Myers-Briggs type indicators in high school. Every boy in class save one was Introverted. Every girl was Extroverted. My class certainly wasn't unique, so some of these stereotypes do have some kind of basis in fact.
So here comes my issues with same sex child raising. How can two women or two men provide that balance? Certainly if one of the partners was behaviorally more of the opposite sex, it's the same as the "traditional" male/female family head. But if not? From everything I understand, a smallish percentage of the population is gay. A smallish percentage of the population is transgender. I would think then that it would be a smallish-smallish percentage of the population that was both gay and transgender, which makes me think that the same sex parents are probably not able to provide the balance of the stereotypically traditional family. Without that balance, it's almost inevitable that the child will have some parental influence in development.
I'm afraid I don't know enough long term gay/lesbian couples to come close to drawing any kind of conclusion on this, and in full consideration that same-sex marriage is a relative new thing, I don't think anyone can offer the right answers yet. I do look forward to the time when my concern on this is completely invalid.
To be specific with the news story that prompted this diatribe of mine, I have some thoughts in my head that perhaps the child is not necessarily gender dysphoric, but simply wanting very badly to be like the parents. I can really see a male toddler of two female parents not being happy having boy parts when neither of the two most important people in said child's life does. Kids compare things as soon as they can find them. The pessimistic paranoid in me has a little voice asking how much exposure has there been to "people penises are bad" talk. On the other hand, pictures show a very happy looking child, which indicates a great deal of the right stuff in the home. Could the child be gender dysphoric? Of course! I wonder how much hoopla there would be over the issue if the child was F2M, and thereby vastly reducing the entire "nurture" potential argument.
I could very well be completely out to lunch, and frankly, wouldn't mind one little bit having it shown to me.
The news article goes on to say that the parents have had the child in to see therapists and psychologists to see which path is right for the child. I'm willing to put real money that the subject of "penis' are bad" talk came up in the sessions - to cross the T if nothing else. The parents have chosen to take a middle path. Wait and see. Hold off on genetic puberty until the child is certain. It sounds like balance. It's not my place to say if its the right or wrong thing to do. I'm sure some archivist 10 years down the road will be happy to revive the story and we can all see how it ends. I pray it ends well.
I think this will mark the first actually serious article on this blog. Good thing it's got limited readership.
For the record, I fully and completely support LGBT rights and protections in the work place, on the street, and at home. I support rights to spousal privileges, such as spousal benefit with life/disability/workers comp, and pretty much anything else going. Except same-sex adoption/families. I understand it, and I believe in the concept. I just have never been sure it could work, and because of this, I have not been able to include it in my list of "fully and completely."
Also for the record, I don't know the Lobel family, will probably never know the Lobel family, and I am sticking strictly with my own thoughts and feelings on their particular issue at hand. I am presenting my own viewpoints, and I sincerely hope that nobody reading this thinks that I am criticizing them. I'm not. I do not, nor will ever, tell another parent how to raise their children. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in child psychology, gender dysphoria, or anything else.
I will eventually discuss the story below after giving my beliefs. I don't mean to sound without compassion or empathy, but I also don't want to be specific to this family - they deserve better than to be singled out. I apologise in advance for any offense you may take for my lack of names, pronouns, and use of third-person common nouns.
I think that handles introduction and disclaimer.
I'm sure I sound old fashioned, outdated, and quite possibly out of touch with modern society when I say that I believe in the balance of the stereotypical traditional family. I believe that for any family to function, there needs to be a solid balance in everything. A balance between nurture and discipline, guidance and self-discovery, give and take, the list goes on. In short, everything that the arch-typical mom and dad respectively provide. I have spent a great deal of time in the last two years being concerned about my own children because I'm not the stereotypical dad.
That'll work for my premise.
My own observances of single parent families have told me that a single mom will tend to have children that are wild, undiciplined, believing that things are owed to them. A single dad is showing me that their children tend to be apathetic, non-empathetic, believing they can take what they want. I admit my sample is very limited, but I work with what I have, and what I have supports my premise.
I understand that every person is different, and many if not most of the people out there don't fit the stereotype mold perfectly. But the stereotype exists because enough evidence has existed throughout human kind to allow such rash and general conclusions. I did some Myers-Briggs type indicators in high school. Every boy in class save one was Introverted. Every girl was Extroverted. My class certainly wasn't unique, so some of these stereotypes do have some kind of basis in fact.
So here comes my issues with same sex child raising. How can two women or two men provide that balance? Certainly if one of the partners was behaviorally more of the opposite sex, it's the same as the "traditional" male/female family head. But if not? From everything I understand, a smallish percentage of the population is gay. A smallish percentage of the population is transgender. I would think then that it would be a smallish-smallish percentage of the population that was both gay and transgender, which makes me think that the same sex parents are probably not able to provide the balance of the stereotypically traditional family. Without that balance, it's almost inevitable that the child will have some parental influence in development.
I'm afraid I don't know enough long term gay/lesbian couples to come close to drawing any kind of conclusion on this, and in full consideration that same-sex marriage is a relative new thing, I don't think anyone can offer the right answers yet. I do look forward to the time when my concern on this is completely invalid.
To be specific with the news story that prompted this diatribe of mine, I have some thoughts in my head that perhaps the child is not necessarily gender dysphoric, but simply wanting very badly to be like the parents. I can really see a male toddler of two female parents not being happy having boy parts when neither of the two most important people in said child's life does. Kids compare things as soon as they can find them. The pessimistic paranoid in me has a little voice asking how much exposure has there been to "people penises are bad" talk. On the other hand, pictures show a very happy looking child, which indicates a great deal of the right stuff in the home. Could the child be gender dysphoric? Of course! I wonder how much hoopla there would be over the issue if the child was F2M, and thereby vastly reducing the entire "nurture" potential argument.
I could very well be completely out to lunch, and frankly, wouldn't mind one little bit having it shown to me.
The news article goes on to say that the parents have had the child in to see therapists and psychologists to see which path is right for the child. I'm willing to put real money that the subject of "penis' are bad" talk came up in the sessions - to cross the T if nothing else. The parents have chosen to take a middle path. Wait and see. Hold off on genetic puberty until the child is certain. It sounds like balance. It's not my place to say if its the right or wrong thing to do. I'm sure some archivist 10 years down the road will be happy to revive the story and we can all see how it ends. I pray it ends well.
No comments:
Post a Comment