Thank you Maphesdus for sharing this, and quite frankly I am embarrassed at the lack of compassion and insight shown by some of the responders.

I am a father myself, and my son is a father, and I can tell you from hard experience that the single most important factor in raising a happy, healthy child (physically, mentally, and spiritually) is understanding, expressed as affinity, reality, and communication -- affinity being what most people call "love".

My own father was, and still is at 83, a hard man -- he had to be to survive the 1930s depression as a kid, support his mom and siblings while his brothers were off fighting Hitler and Japan's Emperor, then raising 5 children while his wife was continually ill and the national economy roller coastered every 5 years.

But one thing my dad always did and still does -- no matter how hard he is on you, you always, ALWAYS know he truly cares and loves you. Do we disagree, of course. But what keeps us together is that underlying love and devotion to each other's survival. It is NOT atruism -- it is each of us making a conscious choice to care for someone who matters to us.

Unless this story was grossly mis-told -- and I am not cynical enough to believe that -- all I see here with these parents is LOVE and CARE for their children.

But what amazes me, and angers me after reading most of the previous responses -- is the complete lack of regard by the respondents for the true affinity and dedication these parents feel for their children, and that some outside entity dared to tear their children away from them.

I've seen enough such cases where local "do gooders" seem to think they have the right to meddle in people's lives, and in this case to the extent that a COURT actually gets involved.

Doesn't any of your see that the underlying issue here is that a COURT, a branch of the local GOVERNMENT, actually reached into someone's home and ripped their children away from them -- and without any previous reports of abuse in any form -- but instead solely on the grounds of their "non main stream" personal sexual/gender preferences?

Like Maphesdus said, "Who's next?"

The whole idea of freedom is FREEDOM.

What it is NOT, is "Freedom is critical and everyone should be free, unless I happen to disagree with what your beliefs are or what actions you are taking."

I disagree with Maphesdus that there should be a law stopping discrimination against transgenders -- (1) because like someone else said, it just creates groups that get unearned privileges like jobs they are not qualified for, and (2) because transgender discrimination is a tiny insignificant issue compared to the unbelievably GLARING issue of, "What in hell is a government (via the court) doing mucking around in people's private lives and dictating how we live???!!!"

If the parents were abusing their children, fine, understood. But unless this story has been totally misrepresented, there was no such abuse here. Yet these poor people -- at the point of a gun -- had the children they've loved and devoted their lives to, torn away from them and forced into the home of cynical, tyrannical, and downright suppressive grandparents.

Doesn't anyone here see that THAT is the real issue in this case???????!!!!!!!!!!

Like Maphesdus said, WHO'S NEXT?

She thinks she's a guy... doesn't mean I'm going to call HER "him". Now, that said, I don't think there's any reason the court could have taken away the children for her thining she's a dude and taking a guy's name. There's got to be more to the story than that, and if not, shame on the court.

But SHE (aka "Daniel") is still a woman. I refuse to call her "him".

THIS GUY WAS NEUTERED AND STILL CAUSES PROBLEMS! WAKUP PEOPLE.

You win...

http://www.plusaf.com/linkedin/linked-in...

"And whether something causes harm is the litmus test I use to determine whether it should be permitted."
Oh Maph....someone living a life harmful to themselves is not anyone's business. That's interfering with personal choice and no one has a right to interfere with one's self destruction. They own themselves. No matter how much you think you know better you have no right to make personal decisions for others.
As for polygamy... I couldn't care less what they do... what I have a problem with is them all (90 of 'em) living off the gov dole. I do not want to support their bad decisions. I won't interfere with their decisions but I do NOT want to fund them.

All from scantily clad parades?

I could care less what they "identify" with. I could care less what they choose to live their life as, but I'm not going to call them a man if they have two X chromosomes.

And SERIOUSLY? You're saying "you are 'defining' 'woman' by the XX chromosome..." Where has your sense gone? That is the DEFINITION of female. Woman = female.

I'm seriously confounded as to how people in this world, especially on this board, can look at the rational world and think that a woman calling themselves a man because they "identify" that way... *sigh* I don't even know what to say.

Empathy... give me a break. If I'm walking my dog down the street and I say to you "Hey, how do you like my pet Leopard?" Are you doing me a favor by saying "oh, yeah, nice Leopard you got there"? No, I'm a freaking idiot if I believe my dog is a leopard, and I should probably get psychiatric help.

and the part that you don't admit to is that YOUR agenda affects THEM, but since it's YOUR agenda, it's ok and THEIR "agenda" which you call it, isn't ok because it's THEIR agenda.

Actually, YOUR agenda comprises limits to other people's rights and THEIR "agenda" is the seeking of equal rights and treatment for all individuals.

And you don't want that, do you?

And how did it "harm" your family? I've got several gay/lesbian friends; a few have kids of their own and NONE of them or their relationships or children have harmed MY marriage in any way at all!

Please list the tangible damage done to your marriage or anyone else's by such events or possibilities... Don't hurry... take your time so the list is as complete as you can make it.

I'll be sitting here holding my breath.

No, I don't know you, Mitch, but I am able to infer many things from what you say and how you say it.

And you didn't even accuse me of being wrong, either. :)

and, YOU are "defining" "woman" by the XX chromosome and denying any possibility that a person born "XX" could POSSIBLY identify with the male gender and feel absolutely comfortable with that identification BECAUSE YOU DON'T IDENTIFY WITH a different gender.

Mind reading and complete empathy must be a real burden for you... You don't know many gays or transgenders, do you? Didn't think so.

It's in-your-face tactics. Which, I'll repeat, does nothing to further your cause.

Yep, and I did notice the part about...
"and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records."

This will obviously take some "ironing out," but it's not a free pass to boys to go watch the girls just because they want to... And some girls will probably kick the shit out of boys who claim to be otherwise, too...

And no, it hasn't harmed your marriage or society, either... :)