BMEWS
 

this gets complicated. but it’s where our world is today. no worries tho, it’ll get worse.

 
 


Posted by peiper    United Kingdom   on 06/04/2015 at 10:26 AM   
 
  1. The only thing missing is some involvement by Bruce Jenner… or Caitlyn Jenner… or whatever it calls itself now.

    Sigh…

    Posted by CenTexTim    United States   06/04/2015  at  11:21 AM  

  2. This case should be easy for the judge. Take the kid away from everyone and have Bruce Jenner and the Kardashians adopt her. Then she can live with a “normal” family.

    Posted by RedneckGeezer    United States   06/04/2015  at  11:22 AM  

  3. Exactly; I was going to say the real winners here are the lawyers.

    And now, to “help” us “accept” the “new normal”, we’re going to have at least one new TV show about a family that lovingly grows to accept their new surgically altered members back into the fold. Or a new fold created by both surgery and new relationships. And I’m sure that within a small number of years EVERY SHOW ON TV will have a chop job character. Just like how Teh Gayz are made by the media to seem like 50% of the population when in fact they are less than 5%. You will be hammered and hammered until you submit.

    I think the first show is called “Becoming”, but “Trans spotting” seems just as appropriate to me.

    Posted by Drew458    United States   06/04/2015  at  12:39 PM  

  4. Oh, and they missed one: ‘James’ should also be the sperm donors ex, or brother, or something, just to add the shadow of incest in case there was one snowflake’s chance that this kid could have a normal life.

    Posted by Drew458    United States   06/04/2015  at  12:42 PM  

  5. Good bloody God, this is a mess. This kind of situation would be a nightmare even in a natural/biological sense. Though the gender issues can’t be easy.

    My best stance is this. “Rachel” apparently bailed on her own daughter very early on. This makes me uninclined to privilege her opinion or actions just because they are blood relations. the fact that she is a schizophrenic can’t be good for her cause or behavior. Ultimately, unless evidence indicates otherwise she abdicated responsibility for her own flesh and blood. This indicates that she shouldn’t be involved.

    Helen seems to be the primary caretaker by far though, and that is definitely something I WOULD privilege her instincts and decisions. She’s been taking care of “Alice” the most and knew “Matthew”, and is in a better position than just about anybody else to know what would happen. Of course it also gives her a better opportunity to inject bias and grind any hatchets she has, but if she is deemed to be a responsible parent (for lack of a better word) by some sane person there is probably something working.

    But as for “Matthew”, this is the rub. He was obviously in the same house with Alice and Helen for a good while. Normally he wouldn’t have proximity to even sue for this (since he’s not the sperm donor) but this time together- right after the supposed other parent dropped out- is certainly something to scratch heads about.

    Ultimately, I’d probably say have the court conduct a supervised visitation of Alice to “Matthew” and James’s place. That way they can see if anything is wrong. Also keep the option open to return after the fact and intervene if one side or the other does seem off.

    If there is, deny ability to contact. If there isn’t, give him a small ability to do it (though given his tertiary role in things it should not be equivalent to an actual parent or main caregiver).

    And I am not feeling any better now that I am analyzing stuff like this clusterff…

    Posted by Turtler    United States   06/04/2015  at  09:54 PM  

  6. This is what happens when mentally ill people attempt to create a ‘family’. The only person who is being harmed is the child - who is now so confused as to what it means to be female or male, mother or father. No one in this child’s life has given a damn about her - only about their own ‘lifestyle’. And how can a child form normal instincts of what it means to be a boy or a girl or a family or a wife or a husband when she is surrounded by people who change partners and ‘genders’ at will. And sorry - 4 years ain’t beans in the life of a child - just because you ‘can’ do it - doesn’t mean you should do it.

    I hope for the child’s sake that they take her away and allow her to grow up to be as normal an adult as possible - then let her make a decision as to whom she views as a ‘parent’ in that horrible mass of people who, it appears, only live by - if it feels good, do it. Or like me - just prefer to be as far away from the crappola as possible.

    It (homosexuality and ‘transgenderism’) used to be a mental illness - there is a reason. And this sordid story is part of the proof.

    Posted by wardmama4    United States   06/05/2015  at  08:19 AM  

  7. This is social darwinism at work.

    No kidding.  Social institutions grow and evolve just the same as biological systems grow and evolve.

    Certain forms work and over time they became the norm - you know - man + woman + their biological kids.  It’s a stable, working system that has evolved over time and is enshrined in the social norms of every culture around the world.  While variations exist, the basic institution of marriage as it has traditionally existed for thousands of years is a functional and stable institution because it works. 

    We’re in a period of huge social experimentation.  Think of the experiments as natural mutations in a living creature.  Some of the experiments or mutations may work, even thrive.  Most won’t and the results of those experiments will die.  It looks as if the child of this unusual group will be one of the casualties. 

    Within the scope of a society, there have always been subcultures, such as Gays.  As far as I can tell, Gays and Lesbians have always been a part of society.  While actually a small but normal part of any society (I’m talking practical here, not moral judgements) they have never become the dominant force because they do not sustain a society over time.

    Working systems survive, others die.  That’s evolution at work.

    Poor girl.  I hope she manages to sort it all out without killing herself.

    Posted by Dr. Jeff    United States   06/05/2015  at  02:11 PM  

  8. Doc, you’ve missed one important thing here. They are becoming the dominant force. Take a step back and think about it. Look at all the successful challenges in courts they have had. They now go out actively seeking anti gay or those who appear so, and sue. They have changed our language and meaning of words. Yes, the numbers may be small but how many of us would today express our joy at something by saying we feel gay? A Christian owned bakery here refused to decorate a cake endorsing homosexuality. They were clearly targeted, as were the couple who owned a B and B a few years ago, for refusing to give 2 queers a room. No, they have muscle now and money and organisation and are happy to enforce their views thru the courts, where they usually win.

    Posted by peiper    United Kingdom   06/05/2015  at  04:00 PM  

  9. This is evolution at work. 

    They may, by artificial means such as the courts or political manipulation become dominant in someways, but in the long run, their social structure will be weak and unstable.  Even if they use dictatorial means to dominate the country, the country will be essentially weak and will be taken over by others.

    Never forget that the traditional social structure has survived over thousands of years.  It has been tested under every adverse condition in history.  It survived because it worked.

    Survival of the fittest means death for those who aren’t the fittest.

    Posted by Dr. Jeff    United States   06/05/2015  at  07:02 PM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Next entry: Digital Defenestration

Previous entry: Gotta Train Him

<< BMEWS Main Page >>