NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, sort of....

He used to be a woman.

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/27/usa?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront)

An American married man, who used to be a woman before having gender reassignment surgery, has sparked shock and disbelief after claiming to be five months pregnant with a baby girl.

After falling in love with his wife, Nancy Roberts, he underwent the sex-change because Hawaiian law bars same-sex marriages.

"I will be my daughter's father and Nancy will be her mother," he said. "We will be a family." He added that it feels "incredible" to be a pregnant man: "Despite the fact that my belly is growing with a new life inside me, I am stable and confident being the man that I am."

"Doctors have discriminated against us, turning us away due to their religious beliefs," Beatie wrote in his article. "Healthcare professionals have refused to call me by a male pronoun or recognise Nancy as my wife. Receptionists have laughed at us. Friends and family have been unsupportive; most of Nancy's family doesn't even know I'm transgender. Wanting to have a biological child is neither a male nor female desire but a human desire."

Some, however, have expressed concern that the baby could be exposed to the gender-changing hormones Beatie had been taking, damaging her for life. Furthermore, there are questions over the psychological impact that the child may suffer.

Highly abridged from the original article but who cares what healthcare professionals think, the important thing is what does NSG think?

Alas, in the interests of full disclosure...

Fox News has been investigating the story and says the biggest clue that this may be a hoax lies in the revelation that Beattie is under a confidentiality contract, which ends on April Fools' Day – April 1. Beattie says that he won't be speaking to the media until then.

Even so, are their health care concerns either in hormones or psychological with gender-reassigned parents?

Ahoy, is that a poll I see before me?

I heard about this on the radio, so obviously I can't provide any sources, but apparently this man's neighbour figures it's a hoax, since he saw the man recently and he didn't appear pregnant.

A man cannot get pregnant. Changing around the physical parts doesn't change what's on the inside, especially if the tubes don't get cut. You can change sexual/gender roles, but you can't change what you started with...yet I suppose.

I heard about this on the radio, so obviously I can't provide any sources, but apparently this man's neighbour figures it's a hoax, since he saw the man recently and he didn't appear pregnant.

Luckily, and as always my young Irish cara, I am light years ahead of you and provided the source in the link:

Stunned neighbours are questioning Beatie's revelation. One said he had seen Beatie a few days ago and did not look like the picture shown on The Advocate's website. "He was walking down the street with who I thought was his wife, Nancy, and I don't recall seeing a belly," said Ron Schlieper. "If that [picture was taken] a month ago, he would have been much bigger just a few days ago."

Luckily, and as always my young Irish cara, I am light years ahead of you and provided the source in the link:

Hey, I'm not that young.


Also, I totally didn't click the link :)

A man cannot get pregnant. Changing around the physical parts doesn't change what's on the inside, especially if the tubes don't get cut. You can change sexual/gender roles, but you can't change what you started with...yet I suppose.

Mkay..so what's your opinion - do you think there's any issues with this?

When the kid is at school and it gets around that his father gave birth to him and, beyond that, is a lesbian sex-reassigned male, is this justified in terms of martyring his esteem for the greater cause of acceptance or is it cruel and unusual punishment?

A man cannot get pregnant. Changing around the physical parts doesn't change what's on the inside, especially if the tubes don't get cut. You can change sexual/gender roles, but you can't change what you started with...yet I suppose.

He used to be a woman.

He used to be a woman.

He still is internally, obviously.

He still is internally, obviously.

I guess so.

He still is internally, obviously.

Still is externally too from what I understand. Breasts removed and hormones taken to simulate being male, while keeping female bits. Reeks of a publicity stunt to me. I'm fairly certain a transgendered person cannot get married unless they go all the way on the conversion.

Good! I'm glad he and his wife did this. They as a couple have the same rights even if he was a she before.

Of course, I may very well be biased because I have a friend who was a she now a he (intersexed), and to me they are the same person, and that gender matters not; only who they are matters to me.

These judgemental people irk me. Who are they to judge when something isn't normal?

These two people obviously love each other and the gender doesn't matter to them. Why should it matter to others?

He used to be a woman.
"He" is a woman.

http://www.cinemovies.fr/images/data/films/Pfilm3348928346413.jpg
"it's not a tumor!"

What a load of bullshit.
This "man" isn't a man. S/he was born a woman and didn't undergo a total gender change. That is, s/he kept her female sexual organs, the only thing s/he did was taking male hormones so to develop facial hair and reduce breasts.
No wonder s/he can become pregnant, she's a woman with small tits and a beard!
This is also why here in Italy you can have your gender altered only if you undergo total gender change - that is, for women, explanting uterus and female gonads, and implanting a penis.

Oh, of course, I'm happy for her/im.

Still is externally too from what I understand. Breasts removed and hormones taken to simulate being male, while keeping female bits. Reeks of a publicity stunt to me. I'm fairly certain a transgendered person cannot get married unless they go all the way on the conversion.

Don't be silly now, of course they can.

while its certainly an april fools joke, its a stupid story.

he did NOT have gender reassignment surgery. those people cannot get pregnant. he did not get pregnant by having sex with his wife. women cannot get anyone pregnant. so he would have had to cheat on his wife with a man. no gay couple picks one to have a sex change so that they can get a freaking piece of paper. after all, if the wife is a lesbian she would have big problems with her new husband, nor would she put the woman she loves through that kind of ordeal.

its a stupid story.

while its certainly an april fools joke, its a stupid story.

he did NOT have gender reassignment surgery. those people cannot get pregnant. he did not get pregnant by having sex with his wife. women cannot get anyone pregnant. so he would have had to cheat on his wife with a man. no gay couple picks one to have a sex change so that they can get a freaking piece of paper. after all, if the wife is a lesbian she would have big problems with her new husband, nor would she put the woman she loves through that kind of ordeal.

its a stupid story.

Heh did you actualy read the story? It tells of a sperm donor, how the wife can't have babies, ohh and I first saw this story two days back making it the 25th March, not the 1st April.

Don't they remove the uterus in female-to-male gender reassignment; and don't they pump someone full of male hormones making it impossible to be pregnant even if you did still have a uterus?

Ahoy, is that a poll I see before me?

Poll should have been multiple choice. I pick the first three options. *nod*

Heh did you actualy read the story? It tells of a sperm donor, how the wife can't have babies, ohh and I first saw this story two days back making it the 25th March, not the 1st April.

no im not that interested in it.

a female to male transexual cannot have babies.

the april first thing is explained in the OP.

no im not that interested in it.

a female to male transexual cannot have babies.

the april first thing is explained in the OP.

Ahh well then that explains it. Why can a female to male transexual not have babies then?

http://www.cinemovies.fr/images/data/films/Pfilm3348928346413.jpg
"it's not a tumor!"
"Get to the medi-choppa'!"

Ahh well then that explains it. Why can a female to male transexual not have babies then?

To be honest, it doesn't really matter - the questions raised by the story, regardless of whether factual or not, remain.

Feel free to continue the discussion of course, no harm in defining gender reassignment but it's not overly relevant to the question.

Poll should have been multiple choice. I pick the first three options. *nod*

I thought about it, I also thought about making the poll public but, ultimately, I just didn't.

Such is my whimsy.

no im not that interested in it.

Why are you speaking then?

The couple moved to the former logging town in Oregon and were keen to start a family after 10 years together but Nancy, 45, had a hysterectomy after health problems 20 years ago.
Beatie, who has had chest reconstruction surgery and testosterone therapy, but kept his female reproductive organs, is now legally a man. He stopped the hormone injections, allowing his periods to return.
While i still don't know if it's possible I did at least bother to read the article before thinking of posting my opinion.

Fox News has been investigating the story
EH? Fox News and investigating in the same sentence?!?!
On the other hand the story in the Advocate article seems consistent.
Still it might be a publicity stunt.

Edit: LOL, i forgot to post my opinion... If true i see nothing wrong with it. If publicity stunt... Well, it's working.

Ahh well then that explains it. Why can a female to male transexual not have babies then?

this person is claiming to have had surgery for sex reassignment so that she can marry as a man. the surgery removes your female organs.

besides, doctors dont do drastic surgery for political reasons. the candidate has to jump through all sorts of hoops to make sure that s/he really is transsexual and will benefit from the surgery. this person wouldnt qualify.

claiming to be transsexual isnt the same as BEING transsexual.

I thought about it, I also thought about making the poll public but, ultimately, I just didn't.

Such is my whimsy.

How dare you take away my right to poll abuse! I want multiple options! :p

claiming to be transsexual isnt the same as BEING transsexual.

Nor is it the same as being intersexed.

My reaction can most accurately be described as "meh". If true, this story simply involves two people in a relationship who couldn't otherwise have had a child unless through adoption finding a solution that works for them both which removes this problem. I really don't see why there's a big fuss about it. Indeed, I find the fact that this is being splashed around the internet in "OMG, FREAK, LOL" terms (not so much of that here, but plenty on other forums I'm on)" mildly depressing. So a non-op transman stopped taking hormones, and is now pregnant. So what?

this person is claiming to have had surgery for sex reassignment so that she can marry as a man. the surgery removes your female organs.

besides, doctors dont do drastic surgery for political reasons. the candidate has to jump through all sorts of hoops to make sure that s/he really is transsexual and will benefit from the surgery. this person wouldnt qualify.

claiming to be transsexual isnt the same as BEING transsexual.


So you are saying that he is not a transexual because he still has female parts?

What a load of crap really. There are pre-op and post-op transexuals, the important thing is in the head. If this man wants to live as a man, and has started the operations nesicary to change his body into that of a man, then he is man, and he can certianly be called transgendered.

Here's a story that explains things better, along with pics.

Mr Beatie was born female, named Tracy Lagondino, but had gender reassignment surgery and is now legally male and married to a woman.

He decided to carry a baby for his wife, Nancy, because she had a hysterectomy years ago. He was able to get pregnant because he kept his female organs when he switched genders.

“Sterilisation is not a requirement for sex reassignment, so I decided to have chest reconstruction and testosterone therapy but kept my reproductive rights,”

And
Before becoming pregnant, Mr Beatie stopped the testosterone injections he was receiving as part of his gender reassignment.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3628860.ece

It's in the Advocate as well, I doubt it's a hoax.

Also from that story:
The Advocate said it had confirmed the story with Mr Beatie’s doctor.

He's also not the first transgendered ftm to give birth.
http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=41392&cat=12

It's a hoax. There are two reasons this story doesn't hold up.

1) They wouldn't do sex reassignment surgery without removing the ovaries. They are the source of tons of female hormones. They need to be removed for proper sex reassignment. You can't really be male if you are still producing gobs of estrogen. It doesn't work.

2) Even if he kept his female "bits," he wouldn't be legally male and thus would not be allowed to marry someone who is also female. And even if they managed to get married by being deceptive about it, as soon as the state and his employer realized he was still biologically female (perhaps by publicizing it), the marriage would be quickly annulled and the couple would loose all benefits they were getting through employment.

And let's not forget that it is still considered "same sex marriage" in most states even if you have had the surgery. The US is still a very backward and homophobic place. Doubly so for transsexuals. So it is doubtful they would have ever been allowed to marry if he really was a transsexual.

Seriously people, it's a hoax.

It's a hoax. There are two reasons this story doesn't hold up.

1) They wouldn't do sex reassignment surgery without removing the ovaries. They are the source of tons of female hormones. They need to be removed for proper sex reassignment. You can't really be male if you are still producing gobs of estrogen. It doesn't work.

2) Even if he kept his female "bits," he wouldn't be legally male and thus would not be allowed to marry someone who is also female. And even if they managed to get married by being deceptive about it, as soon as the state and his employer realized he was still biologically female (perhaps by publicizing it), the marriage would be quickly annulled and the couple would loose all benefits they were getting through employment.

And let's not forget that it is still considered "same sex marriage" in most states even if you have had the surgery. The US is still a very backward and homophobic place. Doubly so for transsexuals. So it is doubtful they would have ever been allowed to marry if he really was a transsexual.

Seriously people, it's a hoax.

1) Wrong.
2) Wrong.

1) Wrong.
2) Wrong.

One of my closest friends is a FtoM tran. I've been throught these issues many times. He and his wife had their marriage licence revoked after it got out he was born a female. Sadly, it happens.

One of my closest friends is a FtoM tran. I've been throught these issues many times. He and his wife had their marriage licence revoked after it got out he was born a female. Sadly, it happens.

Excpet it doesn't. If you would have read the quoted text, you'd have seen that overy removal isn't neccesary to legally become a male. It gets chagend on the driver's license and on the birth certificate. The courts can't revoke the marriage, because the marriage is valid. Let me say it again, it's changed on the birth certificate.

One of my closest friends is a FtoM tran. I've been throught these issues many times. He and his wife had their marriage licence revoked after it got out he was born a female. Sadly, it happens.

It all depends were you come from, what laws are in place.

It all depends were you come from, what laws are in place.

And this man is from Oregon, where his gender was changed on his birth certificate. It's pretty much all states that will change your birth certificate. I can't remember who the one or two holdouts are.

-snip-

So umm, If (s)he has a penis (and I'm just assuming here), How are they going to deliver the baby, because even passing a Kidney Stone hurts like hell for us guys, I don't even want to think about passing a kid.

So umm, If (s)he has a penis (and I'm just assuming here), How are they going to deliver the baby, because even passing a Kidney Stone hurts like hell for us guys, I don't even want to think about passing a kid.

ahhhh the old 'poo a melon vs pee a plum' argument.

So you are saying that he is not a transexual because he still has female parts?

What a load of crap really. There are pre-op and post-op transexuals, the important thing is in the head. If this man wants to live as a man, and has started the operations nesicary to change his body into that of a man, then he is man, and he can certianly be called transgendered.

You're mixing transgender and transexual. Transgender =/= transexual, and vice versa.

An American married man, who used to be a woman before having gender reassignment surgery, has sparked shock and disbelief after claiming to be five months pregnant with a baby girl.

Obviously they did a half-assed job with that surgery, because it is physically impossible to be pregnant/bear a child with only male reproductive organs.

In my opinion 'he' is still a woman.

Excpet it doesn't. If you would have read the quoted text, you'd have seen that overy removal isn't neccesary to legally become a male.
Strange.
It gets chagend on the driver's license and on the birth certificate. The courts can't revoke the marriage, because the marriage is valid. Let me say it again, it's changed on the birth certificate.
I can understand changing it on the driver's license, but changing the birth certificate seems odd to me. You were either born male or female, that fact doesn't change because you undergo a surgery.

Strange.

I can understand changing it on the driver's license, but changing the birth certificate seems odd to me. You were either born male or female, that fact doesn't change because you undergo a surgery.

The vast majority of states have laws or administrative policies allowing a transsexual person to change the sex designation on his or her birth certificate. States with statutes allowing a transsexual person who has undergone sex-reassignment to change his or her birth certificate include AZ, CA, CO, GE, HI, IL, IA, LA, MA, MD, MI, NC, NE, NJ, NM, OR, UT, and WI. Others have administrative policies to the same effect. This is important, because by allowing birth certificate changes, a state is acknowledging that changing one's sex is legally possible.

http://www.transgenderlaw.org/resources/translaw.htm

As far as administrative power there's only two states that flat out refuse:
Only Idaho, Ohio and Tennessee refuse to permit a change of sex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aspects_of_transsexualism

Birth certificates are given based on outward genetalia. Who knows how many people are walking around with XX chromosomes and a penis or XY and a vagina. And then what do the XXY people get called on a mirth certificate? Other?

I express my happiness in two forms:

1) For the happy couple (if this isn't a hoax, which I don't think it is), congratulations.

2) For me, and all others born XY and living as straight men, relief that our kind has yet to be at risk of actually being forced to carry children to term. Knowing the type of women that I date, I know that I run the risk of having to split pregnancy duties with a future wife (a scary thought indeed). I'm going to have to bring this issue up at the next Man Law meeting inside the Clear Cube. We must consider a new Man Law.

This thread has made me very confused.
I'll say it's a hoax.
So if this woman who turned into a guy has a baby then changes back to a woman then back to a man and has another baby...what happens?
:confused:

As far as administrative power there's only two states that flat out refuse:

Only Idaho, Ohio and Tennessee refuse to permit a change of sex.

:confused: Whut?

a female to male transexual cannot have babies.

But he/she can have the RIGHT to have babies!

This link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU) has an update, showing how he looks now.

But he/she can have the RIGHT to have babies!

This link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU) has an update, showing how he looks now.

you bastard.


:D how dare you.
A bit odd isn't it? to have the right to do something but you can't do it? that's like saying, "you're allowed to fly, but hey you can't so there you're free now, go!"

So umm, If (s)he has a penis (and I'm just assuming here), How are they going to deliver the baby, because even passing a Kidney Stone hurts like hell for us guys, I don't even want to think about passing a kid.
The male urethra (the tube that you pee out of, or through which you would pass a kidney stone) is NOT analogous to the female vaginal opening.

Women also have urethrae. We pee out of them. If we are going to pass a kidney stone, that's where it comes out.

The vaginal opening is a whole different hole.

Women do not expel waste and gametes through the same orifice, the way men do. Women certainly don't deliver infants out of one of their waste chutes.

And, at any rate, a great many women don't deliver vaginally any more. As long as this individual had all the internal parts functioning, he could simply have a Cesarean delivery if his vagina had been surgically modified.

I'm wonderin'; Why didn't the chick that couldn't have kids be the one to get the sex change?

This just reeks of publicity...

I'm wonderin'; Why didn't the chick that couldn't have kids be the one to get the sex change?

Maybe she didn't want to? Maybe a psychologist wouldn't approve it?

A sex change isn't something to enter into lightly.

I'm wonderin'; Why didn't the chick that couldn't have kids be the one to get the sex change?

This just reeks of publicity...
If you would have read beyond the first page you would have known that her parnter was unable to have children.

But he/she can have the RIGHT to have babies!

This link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU) has an update, showing how he looks now.

Here's a story that explains things better, along with pics.



And


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3628860.ece

It's in the Advocate as well, I doubt it's a hoax.
:rolleyes:

Oh fucking noes is all I can say about this one.

If it's true.
And the kid is a girl... And was under the influence of a ton of Male hormones...

It can't be good.

If it's true.
And the kid is a girl... And was under the influence of a ton of Male hormones...

Herm??

Or this... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHT2PRWu9Mw)

You're mixing transgender and transexual. Transgender =/= transexual, and vice versa.

Meh *shrug*:D

If it's true.
And the kid is a girl... And was under the influence of a ton of Male hormones...

It can't be good.

It could be considered 'intersexed' by some, but not typically.

Strange... I am kind of like that...

I was born with my body unable to naturally produce oestrogen, but it was able to produce the other hormones. I had the primary female sexual characteristics but I lacked the secondary, which were only possible with hormone treatment, which was key to triggering puberty.

It's call Kallman Syndrome.

nvm... pah

I saw the picture in yesterday's paper. That is so wrong. The child should be taken into care without seeing it's parents and be sent far away and never told of it's origins.

I saw the picture in yesterday's paper. That is so wrong. The child should be taken into care without seeing it's parents and be sent far away and never told of it's origins.

Why?

Why?
Because families which don't fit an extremely narrow view of "normal" make some people very scared.

Because families which don't fit an extremely narrow view of "normal" make some people very scared.

Too bad for those people because I view them as abnormal and hence scary. So I will petition my government so that men have babies and nothing is the way it seems! :D:D:D:D:D:D

Because families which don't fit an extremely narrow view of "normal" make some people very scared.

Ahhhh yeah I see.

If it's true.
And the kid is a girl... And was under the influence of a ton of Male hormones...

It can't be good.
*cough*
Here's a story that explains things better, along with pics.


Before becoming pregnant, Mr Beatie stopped the testosterone injections he was receiving as part of his gender reassignment.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3628860.ece

Because families which don't fit an extremely narrow view of "normal" make some people very scared.
But it's not me that has a problem with it, think about when the kid goes to school. I'm just worried about the kid.

^That excuse is great because you can pretend your bigotry is someone else's.

But it's not me that has a problem with it, think about when the kid goes to school. I'm just worried about the kid.

^That excuse is great because you can pretend your bigotry is someone else's.

Amm...no.

The trials that kid will have to go through are very real, one can certainly express serious concern over it - we'd all like to believe that it's just words as opposed to sticks and stones but a gay child was murdered by the boy he'd asked to be his Valentine this year.

The consequences are real.

My own opinion is that tolerance has to start somewhere, someone, if not many people, will have to go through misery to achieve that tolerance - it doesn't mean we shouldn't feel strongly for their future.

It's easier to dismiss that child's time at school where one won't have to go through it, one can grandly call for tolerance without suffering the pain of achieving it.

Amm...no.

The trials that kid will have to go through are very real, one can certainly express serious concern over it - we'd all like to believe that it's just words as opposed to sticks and stones but a gay child was murdered by the boy he'd asked to be his Valentine this year.

The consequences are real.

My own opinion is that tolerance has to start somewhere, someone, if not many people, will have to go through misery to achieve that tolerance - it doesn't mean we shouldn't feel strongly for their future.

It's easier to dismiss that child's time at school where one won't have to go through it, one can grandly call for tolerance without suffering the pain of achieving it.
And that comment was in response to Dukeburyshire's comment that the child should be taken away from her family. Kids are cruel and kids are horrible, it doesn't mean that the narrowly defined "normal" family is the only family unit or the right family unit. The argument isn't new. The argument is quite old. That argument has been used as a reason why mixed race couples shouldn't have children, why single parents shouldn't, why mixed religion household shouldn't, why non-Christians shouldn't, among others.

That attitude solves nothing and give an excuse for bigorty to continue.

Amm...no.

The trials that kid will have to go through are very real, one can certainly express serious concern over it - we'd all like to believe that it's just words as opposed to sticks and stones but a gay child was murdered by the boy he'd asked to be his Valentine this year.

The consequences are real.

My own opinion is that tolerance has to start somewhere, someone, if not many people, will have to go through misery to achieve that tolerance - it doesn't mean we shouldn't feel strongly for their future.

It's easier to dismiss that child's time at school where one won't have to go through it, one can grandly call for tolerance without suffering the pain of achieving it.

I don't know that it's really all that unfairly dismissive to suggest that "other kids will be mean to the children" is a stupid objection to non-traditional families. Kids will also be mean to smart kids, stupid kids, kids with bad haircuts, kids who are unusually short, kids who are unusually tall, kids who are overweight, kids who are underweight, kids whose parents make them wear dorky clothes, kids with ADHD, kids who are clumsy, kids who are shy, and so on and so forth. That's what kids do. I honestly don't believe life is much, much harder for a child with two mommies than for a child with a funny-looking birthmark - and yet somehow, funny-looking-birthmark kid never seems to inspire the worry that two-mommies kid does...

I saw the picture in yesterday's paper. That is so wrong. The child should be taken into care without seeing it's parents and be sent far away and never told of it's origins.

If you don't like it, move to a nice conservative theocracy where men are men, women are shrouded and gays are non-existent. Of course you wont' because you love your freedom, and with freedom comes everything that doesn't fit into your little size 0 idea of what a family is.


I don't know that it's really all that unfairly dismissive to suggest that "other kids will be mean to the children" is a stupid objection to non-traditional families. Kids will also be mean to smart kids, stupid kids, kids with bad haircuts, kids who are unusually short, kids who are unusually tall, kids who are overweight, kids who are underweight, kids whose parents make them wear dorky clothes, kids with ADHD, kids who are clumsy, kids who are shy, and so on and so forth. That's what kids do. I honestly don't believe life is much, much harder for a child with two mommies than for a child with a funny-looking birthmark - and yet somehow, funny-looking-birthmark kid never seems to inspire the worry that two-mommies kid does...

Well put.

And here, to add to that, let me put in my 2 cents...

My peers were relentless. They teased me because of a disability.; because I wore hearing aids. Yes, go ahead and be incredulous but it happened and it was one of many things that I got teased for. They would hound me, if you've never worn a hearing aid you would think it's weird when you see a person licking their fingers then applying the saliva to the hearing aid to make it slip smoothly into the ear.

I got teased because I reported having a book stolen to a teacher. What made it worse was they laughed at me just before I reported it to the teacher, and ridiculed me for reading.

Duke... kids will be mean to anyone not like them. Anything that deviates will mean that they are different. Trying to make kids fit into a normal frame will only make it difficult for the future generations to break out of that box.

I've been teased and you know what, I'd rather kids be permitted to be different than to conform. Conforming only means that the bullies are right.