None taken. The point was simply that if I had to choose between losing my children and losing my estrogen I'd lose the estrogen.
I would hardly trade one for another, though.
But, two mothers or even three is not a horrible situation -- regardless the posturing of some so-called leaders in groups like Focus on the Family.
Children need love and attention and it matters not whether they get that from two men, two women, eight people of mixed gender or from a village of two hundred people of all sorts.
We have placed an inordinate amount of emphasis on the 'nuclear family' over the past two generations -- mostly due to economic reasons, as people have moved from place to place and left behind so much of what was once 'family.'
One man and one woman is a seventy year thing, the extended family has been with us for millions of years.
No one else has to validate my choices and actions by doing them the same way. In fact if I wait for that or feel that, then I must not feel particularly validated within myself.
I knew what I knew, did what I did. It was okay. Just as your choices, Mari, are okay.
My difficulty with this particualr question is that it is almost always and invariably a set-up for someone trying to win validation for herself or himself by opposing 'having children' and 'not having children' as some kind of 'real/true transsexual' litmus test.
While my point is this: whatever I have to sacrifice for my children I shall. And no matter what else, I shall never, ever, regret their existence. If someone wants to try to plump her own validity with how one answers that question, then fine for her. Hope she feels validated.
I just wonder why she didn't feel validated before asking the question and getting the answers. That seems like a problem much more intrinsic to herself and much more worthy of her investigation.
Nichole
