Brian Dowling and Arthur Gourounlian expecting first baby.

Sidesteps my question and again highlights the inconsistency -and borderline bigotry - in your thoughts.

There are no doubt plenty of same sex couples bringing up kids without
issue or commentary but I think these two are using the situation to
cash in. That's what concerns many people around the long term welfare
of the children. Do you not have any concerns around this at all?

But the recent discussion on this thread has not been about concerns parents 'cashing in' on their children - which is something that a mother and father can do just the same as two fathers or mothers.

It has been about the idea that a child with two parents of the same sex (and specific to this case, two fathers) are at a disadvantage of sorts in comparison to a child with parents of opposite sexes.

To a certain extent, I'd agree with you - children being exposed to certain environments as a result of their parents' efforts to cash in (visibility in online media, participation in beauty pagents, extensive training in sports/music from a very young age) can be detrimental - but that's linked to the behaviour of the parents, not their sex or sexual preference.

Difference with the latter and his husband is that he didn't monetize his kids.

Thats basically what these 2 are doing. They need to stay in the media headlines, and stories just about themselves are limiting their income, so they need to sell their kids too.

You claim the "vast majority of men would not have a clue about periods" for example. I think that is absolute bull to be honest. Men are not the dimwits about women you seem to assume. But even the ones who do have ignorance on the issue - can do what most parents do most of the time. Step up - learn it - deal with it.

This is what parents of all genders and configurations do all the time. Why? Because we do not have handbooks on how to be parents or operating manuals for children. We learn on the job.

I am curious though. This is far from the first time I have been on a thread having this exact conversation about gay parents and so forth. And literally EVERY time it comes down to "Mothers talking about periods with daughters". Its seriously weird. Why is it always this one particular thing that gets mentioned and nothing else? You'd almost get the impression that talking to girls about periods is the only actual thing mothers do - or that this is the biggest most monumental moment in a girls life bar none.

I am not convinced many or most of the mothers even have that conversation about periods or sex anyway. How many leave it to school? Peers? Internet? Or buy them a book?

But I do not think you are "denying" a kid anything. But I can understand why you feel it is. As I said above when you grew up with certain relationships in your childhood its very difficult to imagine your life without that relationship.

A useful parallel. Read the threads on forums about siblings. There is always users who post that sibling relationships were very important to them. Therefore anyone who is an only child has been "denied" that in their lives. It's the same thing. Projecting. Humans naturally project and assume that if other humans do not have what we have had that they have somehow been denied or have had an inferior less ideal experience.

Harder to imagine is that the landscape of what is "ideal" has many peaks and valleys. And that a multitude of contrasting upbringings and childhoods can be equally ideal and positive and wonderful even if people on those different peaks can not muster the empathy and imagination to acknowledge that the people on the other peaks have it just as good - just different.

One thing that you said though which is certainly not nonsense is your comment about children of single parents. But I think you are saying the right thing for the wrong reason there. It's not so much that they were missing a mother or father in particular. It is that they were missing ANY second parent. Almost by every measure you can think of they have a steeper hill to climb. Much respect and admiration from me for the single parents and children who make it work.

But if you look at the many many many studies on single parents - there is little in them to suggest that hardships and any bad outcomes were because a particular gender of parent was missing. The studies all seem to show the issues come down solely to the fact it is a single adult doing it all on their own.

I would berate anyone for monetizing their children, I think the pps here are commenting on this pair because they are the subject of this thread. There is alot of homophobia here though, of course fathers can give their daughters information on periods etc. Some don't but decent parents don't leave it to the one of the same gender to teach their children about their sexual biology. Myself and my OH are a traditional couple but both equally teach our children about things, normal parents do these days.

Just so we are clear as its hard to discerne from these long winded posts about race cars and the likes, is your assertion that a child being raised by its biological parents is no better or worse than some other / any other alternative? Because of kibbutzes or something?

I don't follow anyone on social media as I'm not on it, I only ever seen Vogue with a child on the Fairy adverts on tv, and I just assumed it was a model baby, not actually her own?

If she flaunts her own kids on social media, then I would roundly condemn her as well if she is doing it for monetary reasons.

you are requesting evidence, have you any evidence to support an alternative family unit? there are loads of studies that support the traditional family. Are there any that suggest a non traditional family model is better?

As far as I know on Boards the person making the assertion is the one required to evidence that assertion. So I have been asking the people asserting that one man and one woman is the "ideal" to show something that supports that notion.

I have not asserted that any other model is better or worse. All I have said is that I have seen nothing to suggest this "ideal" is in fact better or worse. So I have nothing I need to evidence. At all. But I certainly do not need evidence to suggest the non traditional is "better" given I have never once suggested or claimed any such thing!

All that said however - I am aware there are a number of studies showing children of gay and lesbian parents fareing just as well as two straight parents. A small number of studies have even suggested they fare slightly better but too few to harp on about and it's usually Lesbians rather than gay men.

The number of studies showing the children in such families fare worse is really tiny and have systematic flaws in them too.

For example here is a university collation of 75ish studies only 4 of which show the kids faring worse. The rest seem to suggest no real advantage or disadvantage either way:

https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/

There is a summary on wikipedia also which says that "scientific research consistently shows that lesbian and gay parents are as capable and fit as heterosexual parents and that children reared by lesbian and gay parents are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as those reared by heterosexual parents. Major professional associations of physicians, psychologists, psychiatrists, psychoanalysts, pediatricians, therapists, and social workers have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_parenting

But if you find after reading the 75 studies mentioned above and you still want more - I am happy to do the leg work and try and find more for you too. But 75 is a good start considering I am not making any claims I even have to cite evidence for in the first place :) Especially given the people who HAVE been making claims have cited literally nothing at all.

So you are admitting you were blessed to have been raised by a father and mother.

There is something else that also always bothered me a little about the "You need a woman to explain periods and what they are like" mentality.

People who say that usually know nothing about periods themselves. Specifically that periods from person to person is a very variable experience.

A woman might try to explain to her daugther what they are like and get it entirely wrong. Because she might have for example a light and painless and relatively pleasant experience each month. Her daugther might have it heavy, painful, hormonal swings off the charts and all kinds of other issues.

Really - trying to explain what a period is like to someone is about as useful as trying to explain how a certain food tastes. It might taste one way to me and I love it and it might taste another way to you and you absolutely hate it. It's a personal experience.

So sometimes having something explained to you by someone who does not think they know what it is like might even be better and more healthy than having it explained by someone biased by their own experiences. At the very least I see no reason to think it would be any better or worse.

It is not nonsense that a man can explain it. I have done it myself FFS. And I did just fine. And yes I did help with all the questions you just listed. And more you didn't too. For example given the number of combat I teach them and the amount of sport we do - I helped her through a lot of things related to sports during a period. Again I did just fine. Some miracle man I must be :p

I know enough about it to know for example that some of the questions you listed do not even make sense. For example there is no one way it "should look". There is no "normal" regarding flow. All of this is massively variable.

Your error is to assume you must experience it to be able to explain it. That is absolute bull to be honest. There are many things I have never done or experienced that I can explain to you at great length. Periods included.

And as I said to another user above - it is also a nonsense to assume your experience of it will even translate to the girl you are explaining it to. Periods and the experience of them is very variable so you can not even begin by assuming your experience of them is anything like another girls. IF you do make such an assumption you risk doing more harm than good because you will toss out all these false "Shoulds" that might be very different for her so she might think something is wrong with her.

But the thing that bothers me most is that when people go on and on and on about how you absolutely must have a female parent - its always about periods. One single tiny thing in a kids life. But it is always the thing that gets brought up. Is there literally nothing else you people can come up with as a role for a mother in the home? Why is it always this ONE thing? It's rather creepy to be perfectly honest. You need "one man and one woman". Why? Because periods. !Shiver!

I dont believe you in the slightest. You are saying you would have honestly spoke to your dad about how to insert a tampon or went to your dad and said 'here take a look at me pad Im worried this blood looks odd'.

Fair play to your dad if he helped you but he is not the norm at all.

Im sure she didnt deal with them. Your dad may have.