I know gender is variable, but re the "Pregnant Man" isn't there a breaking point?

[Miller]

@astro

Your attempt to deconstruct Gestalt’s gender as behavior argument is not persuasive. In the context of this discussion where of the notion of something being properly defined as “X” or “Y” is to a large extent related to it’s behavioral “exclusivity” to a particular gender, the act of “being pregnant” can be considered by any measure of common sense a fairly “big” marker of gender. Trying to parse out “big” and “exclusive” into separate categories in the scope of this argument is just silly.

Gestalt was specifically speaking in terms of social markers, which I interpreted to mean signs given out by a person that allow others to determine their gender. Under that definition, pregnancy is not a particularly important marker, because it’s a state that most women spend only a tiny percentage of their lives in, and moreover, one which is easily confused with other factors, such as being overweight. Certainly, from a clinical sense, it’s much more important, but if we’re relying purely on clinical definitions, being pregnant is no greater a gender marker than possession of a uterus. Since we’ve already decided that I can be considered a woman if I act in the manner Gestalt earlier described as “feminine,” then the clinical definition clearly does not control, and the possession of a fetus is no more an indication of gender than the possesion of a uterus.

Your notion that the state of being pregnant would have less play than facial hair as a gender marker because the appearance of pregnancy might logically be mistaken for a pot belly on bearded mannish looking person has little relevance in this discussion. We’re not talking about scenarios where you could fool or confuse someone and say “see the visual perception of gender is mutable”. What we are discussing is whether a person who is behaving in a fashion entirely consistent with that of being a pregnant woman, can also be considered (logically) to be a “man”. The answer is no. A “man” within the context of a behaviorally based definition of gender cannot intersect with, or or be contained within, the the state of “being” pregnant. In humans that behavior is a state of existence “exclusive” to human females.

As I said in my previous post, I don’t think that pregnancy can properly be considered a “behavior.” As to your flat assertion that one cannot be pregnant and be a man, this is no less an arbitrary a definition than saying that one cannot possess double X chromosones and be a man. Why, other than biology, can a man not be pregnant? And if we’re already ignoring biology in determining gender (as already ceded by both you and Getalt in your acceptance of transexuals who don’t get pregnant) then there is absolutely no reason not to ignore this facet of (usually) feminine biology in deciding wether or not the person in the OP is a man or a woman.

I asked Gestalt this, but I’d be interested in your response, as well, since you appear to agree with her: once this guy gives birth, will he revert to being a man again? Or is he forever a female in your eyes because of this? Was he ever a male, or has this pregnancy retroactively reverted his gender identity back to female?

A few more questions, now that I think about it, and I’d like to hear Gestalt’s opinion on them, as well. If a FTM transexual is raped, conceives a child as a result, and decides to carry the child to term, have they lost their identity as a male as a result? Is gender identity something that can be taken from one by force?

Secondly, if a MTF transexual impregnates her girlfriend, does mean that turn her back into a man? If not, why would this be any different than a FTM deciding to become pregnant?

Lastly, why is it important that a person be identified with only one gender in the first place?

[astro]

@Der Trihs

So if someone does manage to successfully implant a fetus in a man ( not at all implausible ), he’s now a woman ? Just because of that ? And once it comes to term and is removed, are they forever tainted with girl-cooties, or do they suddenly become male again ?

No… and that is precisely the point at issue there, because the implanted man was never a woman. The absurdist levels that those who wish to deconstruct the integrity of all gender constructs have to go indicates how frail these precious conceits are about the absolute mutability of gender.

No one is denying that that many aspects of the binary nature of gender lie on a continuum. People who who wish to invest in the effort necessary to shift genders should be accorded the social respect of being termed under the gender whose behaviors they choose to manifest. In real world terms, however, in the end this is a point of social grace, and requires the implicit cooperation of other social actors to be operational.

A biological woman who wishes to be accorded the social grace of being considered as a man aesthecially and behaviorally, is not going to be able to maintain the integrity of that social consideration if they choose to become impregnated and carry a child to term. These opposing behavior states of being are simply too incompatible for other social actors to consider this desire to maintain the appearance of being a man, while actually behaving as a woman, to have any rational merit.

[magellan01]

@Miller

Gestalt was specifically speaking in terms of social markers, which I interpreted to mean signs given out by a person that allow others to determine their gender. Under that definition, pregnancy is not a particularly important marker, because it’s a state that most women spend only a tiny percentage of their lives in, and moreover, one which is easily confused with other factors, such as being overweight.

You seek to minimize the reliability of pregnancy as a social marker because of the amount of time a woman displays the condition. Let’s say you are correct about this. That still doesn’t mean that it is “not a particularly important marker” while she is clearly in that state.

@Miller

Certainly, from a clinical sense, it’s much more important, but if we’re relying purely on clinical definitions, being pregnant is no greater a gender marker than possession of a uterus. Since we’ve already decided that I can be considered a woman if I act in the manner Gestalt earlier described as “feminine,” then the clinical definition clearly does not control, and the possession of a fetus is no more an indication of gender than the possesion of a uterus.

Except if a woman is clearly pregnant. That point at which it cannot be cannot be confused with being overweight. There is a point that a woman displays a pregnancy without ambiguity. At that moment, her being pregnant is as much a marker of her being a woman as if she walked around naked with an arrow pointing to her thatch saying “vagina”. Arguing with that is saying that words do not mean what they think they mean.

@Miller

As I said in my previous post, I don’t think that pregnancy can properly be considered a “behavior.” As to your flat assertion that one cannot be pregnant and be a man, this is no less an arbitrary a definition than saying that one cannot possess double X chromosones and be a man. Why, other than biology, can a man not be pregnant? And if we’re already ignoring biology in determining gender (as already ceded by both you and Getalt in your acceptance of transexuals who don’t get pregnant) then there is absolutely no reason not to ignore this facet of (usually) feminine biology in deciding wether or not the person in the OP is a man or a woman.

While some biology can be ignored, as it might not be 100% reliable, other biological markers go to the very definition of what the words man and woman mean. One may be able to display markers of the opposite gender, thereby casting those markers into an unreliable light, but being pregnant is not one that can be ignored. If someone is pregnant, they are a woman. Are you really arguing with that?

@Miller

I asked Gestalt this, but I’d be interested in your response, as well, since you appear to agree with her: once this guy gives birth, will he revert to being a man again? Or is he forever a female in your eyes because of this? Was he ever a male, or has this pregnancy retroactively reverted his gender identity back to female?

He/She can choose to display whatever markers he/she chooses and identify with whatever sex suits him/her. But the gender they actually are is based on biology. End of story.

@Miller

A few more questions, now that I think about it, and I’d like to hear Gestalt’s opinion on them, as well. If a FTM transexual is raped, conceives a child as a result, and decides to carry the child to term, have they lost their identity as a male as a result? Is gender identity something that can be taken from one by force?

Yes. Although in this case I’d quibble that her identity preference is lost because of her choice to carry the baby. And I think that gets to the heart of it. There are two distinct things: the actual biological gender, and the gender one might chose to adopt. A woman might choose to go through life as a woman or a man. And we should respect that choice. But the fact of the matter is that there is certain biology that falls under one category and NOT the other.

@Miller

Secondly, if a MTF transexual impregnates her girlfriend, does mean that turn her back into a man? If not, why would this be any different than a FTM deciding to become pregnant?

Yes. She is a man at the point of impregnating the girlfriend. Everything else is just being polite and allowing people to go through life as they wish.

@Miller

Lastly, why is it important that a person be identified with only one gender in the first place?

Only on the Dope. Why gender at all? Why not just people? Or creatures? Or beings? We see things in the world and order them into categories. That helps us to talk about things and communicate. Fact is that the concept of gender is rampant in our world. You might as well ask why do we need two directions, up and down. Because one gives meaning to the other.

[Miller]

Thanks for your contribution, magellan, but my questions were for astro, Gestalt, and other posters who are willing to accept the concept of transexuality in general, but are drawing the line at this particular person. They aren’t really applicaple to people like yourself and Magiver, who use a hard-line “biology only” definition of gender, because you’re not going to accept the basic premise of the questions that gender is to some degree mutable, and I’m not really interested in arguing that premise right now.

[magellan01]

@Miller

Thanks for your contribution, magellan, but my questions were for astro, Gestalt, and other posters who are willing to accept the concept of transexuality in general, but are drawing the line at this particular person. They aren’t really applicaple to people like yourself and Magiver, who use a hard-line “biology only” definition of gender, because you’re not going to accept the basic premise of the questions that gender is to some degree mutable, and I’m not really interested in arguing that premise right now.

I do not wish to hijack the discussion and debate the concept of transexuality, and will gladly bow out. But could you just give me a one or two sentence definition of what you mean by “willing to accept the concept of transexuality in general”, because I think I do. But if I do not qualify based on your definition, I will remove myself from the discussion.