Jump to content

Recommended Posts

News today that the world's second known "pregnant man" is expecting his first baby with his transgender husband next month. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/7079941/Worlds-second-pregnant-man-expecting-baby-boy-next-month.html


I'm just trying to decide where I stand on this. Is this a case of straining ethical and legal limits to breaking point in the name of freedom or is it simply a loving couple who ..."want to show the world that trans-families can be healthy, loving and nurturing"


Scott Moore and his partner, Thomas, were both born as girls and have undergone surgery and hormone treatments to transform their sex. Scott, 30, is legally married to Thomas, with whom he lives in California, because he still has a female birth certificate. They met in 2005 at a support group meeting for transgender men.


The pair already have two adopted boys, Gregg, 12, and Logan, 10, who are the children of a former female partner of Thomas's. Scott is now due to give birth next month. The sperm must have been donated but this isn't stated in the article.


So is this a case of two mixed up individuals playing a potentially damaging game of daddies and mommies or is it an acceptable family unit?


I must admit I'm not comfortable with this.


There's no suggestion that Scott and Thomas can't provide a stable loving environment and they're not doing anything illegal. But what will be the long term effects on the two adopted children who have been given up by their mother. And will the third child brought into this 'family' end up well adjusted?

Judging by the poor state of parenting so often displayed in our papers I'm inclined to say as long as they're good parents it doesn't matter if it's the offsprig of a Martian and a hyena being looked after by a transgender communist catherine wheel and a space hopper.

You see, I don't have any problems with a lesbian couple adopting children or having their own children. And strictly speaking this is a lesbian couple despite the legal semantics and politically correct posturing of using words like 'man' to describe females with two x chromosomes because they choose to be surgically and chemically altered to appear more like men.


So, if they are a lesbian couple I shouldn't have any qualms about it. But I do because they are/or are pretending to be 'men'.


(edited for typo)

Whilst it is unusual, to say the least, clearly social services thought them fit parents to adopt two children previously. Therefore I certainly don't think them attmepting to have a "biological" child is so far out.


And whilst I'm still trying to work out whether being a transgendered female to male living with another transgendered female to male makes you gay, straight or bi sexual (and getting a headache in the process) I don't see it as any more problematic than any of those groups having children...i.e. not problematic at all.


I would have thought the "long term effects" of being in a stable, loving family environment would be much more beneficial than remaining in the care-system.

Clearly it is all a bit odd, and I'm sure the parents will get sick to death of explaining it to people over the years, bu in a funny way I bet you their gender roles will be more concrete in their household than many others.

I mean I'm going to be taking some indefinite time off come march/April to take care of the new arrival and missus mockney will go to work as she's keen to pursue her career agressively and I'm hit an Office Space level of ennui with sitting in an offIce for the time being.


Basically it's a funny old world. My young step brother was brought up by lesbians from the age of 11 and he's just graduated uni and is a fine young man, though admittedly the mums have often said how grateful they were having me around as an avuncular male influence.

I suppose the principal concern is that they might influence the sexuality of their children or even sexually abuse them?


Sexual abuse occurs in regular families, so nothing new here.


So, the question becomes, will such parents polarise or compromise the sexually of their children? Well, I guess that must be a possibility. Is that good or bad? I don't know.

Step brother a redblooded hetrosexual heartbreaker.

I suppose militant lesbians (whatever they are) miiiiight try and influence. If that's even possible, I don't know, but can't see that's any different to, say, bringing them up to be a certain religion.

Love is all that's important. There's enough children being born into poverty/disesase/war/earthquake zones on one level or into completley disfunctional 'families' on another to worry about this couple whose child will at the least start its life being wanted and loved

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Love is all that's important...this couple whose child

> will at the least start its life being wanted and

> loved


Agree with ???? here, love and wanting the child have to be the most important requisites for good parenting to take place. As HAL9000 rightly pointed out, abuse occurs in "regular" families, and such abuse (whether it be emotional, physical, psychological or sexual) tends to occur in families where the love for and want of the child are manifestly lacking. I wish the couple all the best, though it won't be easy - too many people with too many prejudices in my most humble opinion.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> How does ones sexuality become compromised?

>

> Influenced - pooossssibly. But compromise suggests

> a right and wrong and somewhere inbetween that I'm

> not sure about


As in confused or influenced away from what it might have been otherwise, sort of thing (assuming that such a thing is even possible).

is it ok?


my answer is 'yes'


is it perfect? no, but nothing is


will they be better or worse than 'conventional' parents, all things considered?


i don't know them, but i imagine that they'll be 'better' than some and 'worse' than others, as most parents are

For sure, the kids will grow up with a different perspective of what a family unit is. But is that such a bad thing? As long as they are free to follow their chosen path further down the line.


It does, however, seem almost inevitable that kids at school are going to give them a hard time.

A mate said she was very uncofortable about two men being 'allowed' to have a child to bring up. Yet she was okay with the idea of two women doing it. It's so offensive to have this belief that - to her mind - men are more likely to - what? - abuse the child? So the other question is do people believe that all men (or all humans with penises or penis substitutes..) are potential rapists?


One of the most well balanced men I have ever known was brought up by his Mum with no male 'role models' in his life at all. (I also have an issue (until I have been made to understand it better) with the argument that the reason black children do badly is they have no black male role models.) Why do we need 'role models'? We are all human and we should concentrate on what makes us alike, and not concentrate on all the many things that make us different from one another. Indeed other humans are our role models and also our warning symbols. But what do I know, I have never wanted kids, largely because my own two heterosexual male father and female mother made me realise from a young age that I wasn't going to fall into that trap!

HAL9000 Wrote:

---------------------------------------------------

> One third of males have served a prison sentence

> by the age of thirty.


Really? Didn't realise the figures were that high. That, to me, is quite shocking.


> One third of male prisoners are sex offenders.

> One third of male-perpetrated sex offences involve

> underage victims.


The last 2, whilst still shocking, do not surprise me at all.

HAL9000 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> One third of males have served a prison sentence

> by the age of thirty.

> One third of male prisoners are sex offenders.

> One third of male-perpetrated sex offences involve

> underage victims.


Do you have a citation for those statistics Hal?


It would seem a little high - especially the first sentence.

The Chair Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Do you have a citation for those statistics Hal?


The Home Office/Ministry of Justice does not routinely collate or publish such figures. However, a study was published in 2001 based on much older data: Criminal careers of those born between 1953 and 1978 (England and Wales). Extrapolated trends from those data indicate contemporary figures within the area indicated above, which, I stress, are approximate, given the absence of official, up-to-date figures.


My source is an as yet unpublished academic paper (that inter alia cites the above document) presently undergoing peer review.

flicked through the document. The actual stat is that one third of males born in 1953 had received at least one criminal conviction. 7.5% have received a custodial sentance.


So it is 7.5% of males born in 1953 have been to jail. Still far higher than for women, but no where near the 33% mark, and the stats only relate to men born in 1953. The proportion declines in later year partially (according to the paper) as the police started giving out cautions for first offences rather than seeking convictions.


According to the paper, most convictions occur between the ages 13 - 20 and are non-violent. The likelihood of being convicted post-20, if you have never previously committed a crime, declines dramatically.

Plus only 13% of convictions last year were for sexual offences. I guess they will be longer so the current population will skew towards the more serious crimes, though looking at the stats it's negligible.


Altogether a fine bit of statistical abuse to proffer misinformation. And I'm still not sure to what end.

Why don't you just say 'all men are rapists' and be done with it.


If this was a way of courting praise by saying women, lesbian or no make better parents, then fine, but you might want to look at your methods of doing so; I'm pretty sure an opinion would have sufficed.


http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/population-in-custody-06-2009.pdf

Magpie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> flicked through the document. The actual stat is

> that one third of males born in 1953 had received

> at least one criminal conviction.


Quite right - that's what I had meant to convey but somehow managed to conflate one with the other.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...