Trans argument comparing adoptive parents to trans people

[NotTerfNorCis]

This analogy seems forced to me, but it got me thinking.

The article says:

Nobody sensible thinks that the existence of adoptive parents undermines our understanding of what it is to be a parent. On the contrary, it extends it.

By implication, the existence of transwomen 'extends' our understanding of what it is to be a woman.

I feel the analogy doesn't work for two reasons.

Firstly, 'parent' is also a verb, and parenting is a role and responsibility. 'Womaning' on the other hand isn't a defined role. There isn't a verb 'to woman', meaning wearing make-up and feminine clothes, working in a low-paid, caring job and deferring to men. 'Woman' is a physical reality - it means adult human female. Anyone who thinks 'woman' is a distinct social role is probably a conservative and not a feminist.

Secondly, 'parent' is a relationship. It's defined entirely in relation to others. 'Woman' is not, except perhaps in the most conservative societies. I know there's a theory that the word 'woman' comes from 'wife of man', but having Googled it that seems to be a misunderstanding.

If the assumption behind the adoptive parent analogy is that 'woman' is a role and a relationship, this speaks volumes for the traditionalist views behind trans ideology.

Adoptive parents aren't an apt analogy at all - because they are parents, they're just not biological parents.

A better analogy would be if a group of childless people decided that they identify as parents. After all being involved in conception isn't required to be a parent (adoptive parent), nor is raising a child (deadbeat dads). Parents don't have to even meet a child to be a parent - a mother can die in childbirth or a father might leave before birth. Likewise plenty of people who are biologically related to a child lose the legal right to be parents or deny that they are parents. Biology and relationship to a child are therefore irrelevant. What makes a person a parent is that they claim that role and identity.

Now these transparents demand entry into PTA meetings, mothers groups, and so on. Then they protest when the topic of children comes up. Don't they know some parents don't have children? Some parent's children die and some people never have them at all. TRANSPARENTS ARE PARENTS!

Adoption is different to choosing to identify as a member of the opposite sex. No one denies adoption. Adoptive parents call the birth parents ‘birth parents’ no one is trying to deny their existence or biological truth. Adoptive parents don’t mind the prefix of adopter. Children must be parented in society or they will die. If they have to be ‘parented’ in a non permanent and non family setting like a children’s home then they fail to thrive. Children must be raised properly and looked after the state has a moral and legal obligation to make sure society does this and new permanent parents are selected for a child. Not long ago many women died in childbirth, in our social species it was necessary for us to have the ability to adopt. If we were unable to adopt children and babies whose parents were dead or unsuitable I am not sure the human race would have survived. Adoption serves a very important group survival function that is natural and up until a few decades ago was probably a lot more common than it is now. I agree also that parenting is very much a doing word over a long period of time and covering many different activities, emotional, physical etc. Children cannot have brain, spiritual, emotional, social development or biological growth and development unless parented well especially children who have had broken attachments in early life hence why adopters are ‘trained’ in a specific type of parenting for children with attachment disorder and foetal alcohol syndrome etc. I knew the debate would get desperate enough to link the two. Actually adopters are a powerful and quite influential bunch so this may prove a bit of a own goal for TRAs.

You can't self-id as an adoptive parent either.

You can also be a birth parent and an adoptive parent simultaneously.

Wrong thread, itatiangreyhound.

One other angle to this tripe: although there are many adoptive parents who are also bio parents, the majority have come to adoption through complications or inability to be able to conceive and carry naturally.

And nothing makes one more aware of one's own biology than stuff that "should" happen naturally fail to do so (never mind those of us who have undergone invasive tests and treatment in order to try to become pregnant, or who have suffered miscarriage after miscarriage)

Perhaps that's one reason why there is a relatively large number of adopters on the FWR board?

Is this not just about trying to infantilise trans people and make them appear as vulnerable as children who are adopted?

Am just watching the Handmaid's Tale and realised that for this analogy to work, us adopters would have to behave like the wives: pretending to be in labour and having our feet massaged etc. when the Handmaid is in Labour.

Actually how the Wives/the Gilead system behaves to the Handmaids is a bit like how the TRAs treat women. Appropriating their fertility, pretending the babies are theirs, using violence and propaganda to stop them being themselves....

@TerfsUp 'Wrong thread, itatiangreyhound.'

What's wrong with my comment?

I said " If the government succeed in implying being trans is not a medical issue then how long before they end up denying people counselling or medical treatment on the NHS."

In response to StringandGlitter comment "How much cheaper for the government to say let’s go to self ID and save $$$."

I believe genuinely dysphoric people do need counselling and may choose surgery or medication. The government want to show trans as a non-medical thing. I know for some it is. But for dysphoric people I believe it is a 'medical thing' as dyphoria is a medical condition.

I know it is not the theme of the thread, but @OlennasWimple said

'The small numbers who apply for a GRC probably mean that the overall cost to government isn't really that high. A few hundred a year (partly offset by the £140 application fee) can't put that big a hole in the coffers.'

But I think the medical costs could be more of an issue. Making 'trans' not a medical thing could somehow free the NHS of responsibility for it.

Just my point of view.