Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Try and keep this on topic please.


Whilst I'm happy (and in fact would encourage) for people to post statistical information, from time to time I might check to see if it is factually accurate.


Lies, damned lies and statistics and all that.....

PeckhamRose Wrote:

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

>

> Why do we need 'role models'?


I'd say because we're a product of part nature/part nurture - those role models don't necessarily have to be parents, but we all need role models from a very early age in order to be accepting and be accepted in our own environment.

to take that further Angie - what has EVER been "normal"?


Things that were accepted (behaviourally rather than technology) as normal say 50 years ago would have been abhorrent to earlier generations


The word "normal" has always struck me as particularly scary

Nothing wrong with the word 'normal'. After all, this is not, by any stretch, a traditional family unit. I don't know anyone who was brought up by two female-to-male transexuals.


I have no problem with the situation - but to play devil's advocate - it would be simplistic to think that the family won't face particular challenges that most others won't.

In my vast experience of parenting it seems to involve working out which one of the twomsnatches some sleep.

Then, if they follow the patented Forum-Method it will at some point involve deciding just the right levels of physical abuse to make their child ambitious and successful.


I see no reason why they should be perculiarly different.

Hello all,


To go back to Silverfox's first post - "I'm just trying to decide where I stand on this"


My question is why do you feel you need to decide on this issue? I don't even view it as an issue, its just a couple of peoples lives out of 6 billion. Spread some joy & love Silverfox and don't worry about other peoples idea of love and families.


V.

HAL9000 Wrote:

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

> 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.



Im not sure how you would 'sexually influence' someone..? I was brought up in a straight house with my parents being straight, my 3 brothers and sisters being straight yet I am gay - so did I miss out on being sexually influenced by my family as my siblings did? And why on earth would these people be more likely (for lack of a better phrase) or atleast it be a concern that they would sexually abuse their children?


Sexuality is who you are and not what others around you are..

Strawbs Wrote:

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

> Im not sure how you would 'sexually influence'

> someone..?


SeanMacGabhann pulled me up on this very point. I'm not sure that it is possible to influence one's sexual orientation - some evidence seems to suggest that it is already fixed at birth, but I'm aware of exceptions.


In my case, I have such a disproportionally high number of gay female first cousins that it suggests (to me) that the trait was passed down via one or other of my maternal grandparents.


My point was that those who think it can be directed by experience might be concerned about that issue in such a case.


However, as an example, I've noticed that guys in my age group are far more likely to be aroused by a glimpse of stockings and suspender belt than younger guys who grew up in an environment where women hardly ever wear them. I suspect that some fetishes (rubber, bondage, etc.) can form as a result of one's earliest sexual experiences.


> I was brought up in a straight house

> with my parents being straight, my 3 brothers and

> sisters being straight yet I am gay - so did I

> miss out on being sexually influenced by my family

> as my siblings did?


I've had this conversation before - with a couple of bi-girlfriends and their gay lovers. Presumably, you knew you were gay right from the start? But I've known women who only discovered their true preference after going through one or more failed hetro marriages. That applies to a few guys I know, too.


> And why on earth would these

> people be more likely (for lack of a better

> phrase) or at least it be a concern that they would

> sexually abuse their children?


I didn't mean to say it was - just that some people may think it is.


> Sexuality is who you are and not what others

> around you are..


Try telling that to my therapist - she says I'm a lesbian trapped in a male body :(


Anyway, when we figure out why hetro guys fantasise about gay girls, only then can we claim to understand human sexuality.

Strawbs, the reason I wrote 'family' is because it's such an odd set up. If this was a heterosexual couple in Britain they'd probably be refused adoption on the basis they're obese alone.


Here are two females who from an early age were unhappy with what nature gave them. They've undergone chemical and surgical reconstruction to become more like males. However, conveniently, Scott, although wishing to be a man mentally has relied on the reality that 'he' is in fact a female to become legally married and also to have a child. Further, they have now become a family.


Hence my original question, is this a case of two mixed up individuals playing a potentially dangerous game of mommies and daddies?


And coming to your point to Hal9000 that 'Sexuality is who you are and not what others around you are' with these two it seems to be more of a case of sexuality is what you can become and what you choose it to be.


This does not mean to say these two will be worse parents than many other parents.

>

> And coming to your point to Hal9000 that

> 'Sexuality is who you are and not what others

> around you are' with these two it seems to be more

> of a case of sexuality is what you can become and

> what you choose it to be.


sorry before I get up on my soapbox are you saying that sexuality is a choice?


Whilst I agree that the family unit is not something you hear of everyday (but this is also not the first case of this happening) I dont think anyone has the right to judge them as 'odd', not sure why some people feel they actually have that right or that what they think or judgements they make and share with others actually matters..


When it comes down to it are these people purely because they were born female and now have become male (even though they are using their reproductive organs to have a child) unfit / unsuitable / bad parents? So long as the home life is stable and loving then essentially there is no issue here..


Some people think that my situation is 'odd' i.e being a lesbian and being married to another lesbian and going on the path of starting a family and quite frankly I find it offensive and also find it offensive that people who are not in the situation sitting up on their highchairs and passing judgement.. I dont think anyone whether they be gay / straight / trans / government has the right to tell anyone else how to live and if they are 'allowed' or they feel it is suitable for them to get married or have a family.. Live and let live is what I say...

I think it might be a high horse. People on highchairs tend to be more concerned with 'i done poo poo.


Other than that what strawbs said. Also on HAL's point I too have an extraordinarily high proportion of lesbians on my distaff relatives (including my mum, though she didn't work it out until i was in my twenties; don't know what took her so long, I think I'd known a good ten years before she'd worked it out) suggesting that genetics is at the least a strongly contributory factor.

Well it strikes me there is an element of choosing one's sexuality here.


To me a person's sex is a biological fact, you are born male or female. Psychologically a person may prefer to have been born into the opposite sex. There may be chemical reasons why this is preferred, unusual levels of testosterone, oestrogen etc - I don't know.


It all depends what you mean by 'sexuality'. As a lesbian you are still a female. A gay man is still a man. Transgender people choose to alter their physical appearance but they can't alter their sex, whatever euphemisms we attach. In the case of Scott and his partner I can't see that you can describe their actions as anything other than doing everything within their means to change their 'sexuality', but try as they might they can't change their sex.


As you say, so long as the home life is stable and loving then essentially there is no issue here..

Silverfox,


You have forgotten about those born as intersex - or hermaphrodites in older language.


The world of sex, sexuality & gender is a huge and ever evolving discourse all of which has not much to do with a persons suitability to be a parent. To question one unconventional couples suitability misses the bigger picture of how many heterosexual people are unsuitable to being parents. There are thousands and thousands of them. If you want to involve yourself in other peoples lives then at least focus on those people that have the biggest impact on the greatest number.


V.

silverfox Wrote:

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

> to my knowledge these are still xx or xy individuals.


Sex chromosome variations include XY, XX, X0, XXX, XXXX, XXXXX, XXY, XXXY (amongst other rarer conjugations) - Source.

silverfox Wrote:

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

> To me a person's sex is a biological fact, you are

> born male or female.

>

> It all depends what you mean by 'sexuality'. As a

> lesbian you are still a female. A gay man is still

> a man. Transgender people choose to alter their

> physical appearance but they can't alter their

> sex, whatever euphemisms we attach.


Judith Butler,in her book "Gender Trouble" makes a convincing argument that the concept of gender is a social construct.The labels "man" and woman" are essentially put upon us at birth, according to what sex we appear to be.

Separating the notion of what "sex" we are, as represented by our genitalia with what gender we choose to identify with lies at the heart of the transgender debate.

I think it helps enormously to not tie everything up with sexuality - it's too simplistic - people don't change their gender to necessarily support their "chosen" sexuality. People's sexuality is defined early on and is a separate issue - which is why transgendered people cover the same spectrum of sexuality as people who haven't chosen to redefine their gender.


As for the rest of the debate -I agree with Strawbs and Piers - they might be terrible parents, they might be terrific - either way it is not business to judge them.

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...