A transgender man in England is pregnant. He claims that he will be a great dad. However, his sexuality is reason for National Organization for Marriage to ridicule this individual and pronounce that his status as a trans man has something to do with marriage equality. This particular bit of obnoxiousness is not attributable to an individual. The author is that great intellect, “NOM Staff.” In spite of its insolvency people other than Brian S. Brown apparently remain on the payroll. The headline reads: “A British woman says she will be the ‘greatest dad’.”
The NOM folks are ineducable:
A British woman who “has been living legally as a man for three years” has made news this week as she is set to become “the first man in UK to give birth.”
The woman, named Hayden Cross, says she plans to “continue his [sic.] transition process to remove his breasts and ovaries as soon as he has given birth.”
We get it. The Catholic Church disapproves of transgender people. Therefore, NOM disapproves of transgender people. Therefore, trans folks do not deserve gender appropriate pronouns. Adherents demonstrate their scorn through the intended slight and by giving the impression that transgender means gender confusion. Apparently the use of the term “transgender man” is prohibited for religious reasons.
This is followed with some self-serving gibberish:
NOM for years has warned that changing the definition of marriage is about more than the simple question of who has access to the benefits of the legal contract of marriage: it is about a shift in social values that places the desires and whims of adult
ahead of the needs and rights of children.
That presupposes that there is something wrong with a transgender man giving birth prior to gender affirming surgery. It is unusual and it does not meet the Church’s family model. That doesn’t mean that there is something inherently wrong. Furthermore this issue has no relationship whatsoever to marriage equality. NOM is tying the two together in a feeble effort to advance the unsupportable theory that there is a reason for NOM to continue to exist and that their frivolus objections to marriage equality had some merit aside from religious opprobrium.
In point of fact those arguments were predicated on the idea that same-sex marriage had some mysterious and pernicious effect on traditional marriage. Now, nearly 13 years since marriage equality came to Massachusetts and in our second year since Obergefell, there continues to be no evidence whatsoever that NOM’s theories about marriage equality have been realized in any way whatsoever. Suggesting otherwise is a dishonest attempt to depict competency where none was present.
NOM Staff are proud of their ignorance:
Nowhere in the story of Cross’s pregnancy is there any discussion of
the right of the child to have a mom who isn’t pretending to be a dad.
Nowhere is there any consideration of the child’s right to feed at the
breast of his or her own loving mother rather than be bottle fed because
that mother decided to remove her breasts and masquerade as a man.
While it might be religiously convenient to suggest otherwise, transgender people are not pretending to be their gender. It is illogical to suggest otherwise. Ridicule over the absence of breast feeding? Come on. To claim that a transgender person is masquerading is just another offensive way to suggest pretense on their part. It is not only illogical but flies in the face of all of the research regarding gender nonconforming people.
Most important is the simple fact that gender plays no part in the quality of parenting. Among other things, a good parent is loving, conscientious, responsible and participative. None of those qualities is associated with gender. As children grow a good parent is also an active listener. That, too, has no relationship to gender.
Primarily for religious reasons, NOM seeks to portray trans people as weird and irresponsible. Intelligent people judge others as individuals and not by sexual orientation or gender identity.