That’s a fine perspective to have, the moral imperative to have children is a common enough feature of various religions and cultures. It is, however, just one perspective. One which you have no right to force onto others.

Here’s my perspective:

Every person has the inalienable right to self determination. One’s body is inviolable and subject to one’s own will alone. Having children is a personal choice that no one else can decide for you.

You are entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to mine. By all means, be fruitful and multiply, but don’t demand that trans people hide themselves from children because you’re afraid of the ideas they might have. If you agree that people have the right to choose then you should have no problem with it being an informed choice.

And being “deeply confused” for a male child means not wanting to act out the traditional role of marrying a woman and bearing children?

From your original comment:

You can be a biologically-male woman all you want, that is your choice and your right

But then you say:

Boys need to understand that they are not women and will never be women, their role isn’t to bear children, it’s to meet a woman and be the father of a child.

So which is it? Is it the right of any person to identify as they choose, or must you act out the traditional (conservative) gender role predetermined by your biological sex?

I reject the premise that a child can be momentarily confused and end up getting full gender reassignment surgery. That’s just conservative fear-mongering that is willfully ignorant of all that’s involved in gender-affirming care.

The only people who fall for this propaganda from upholders of the status quo are ignorant of history. Here’s a quote from Martin Luther King that I think is very relevant:

First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action;” who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.”

Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

The only people who say this are people who are ignorant of history. Here’s a quote from Martin Luther King that I think is very relevant:

First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action;” who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.”

Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.