If you’re trying to find an example of something that’s defined by biology and not culture, I’m not sure race is the best direction to go in. But that’s a whole different can of worms.
It does have a very science fiction element to it, and I think science fiction is actually a good way to get a handle on it. I mentioned an sf novel upthread, The Left Hand of Darkness, that was a landmark read for me on these sorts of issues, and I recommend you check it out. Even if doesn’t shed light for you on this particular issue, it’s still a damned good read.
I can accept that FtM, often don’t go all the way with the surgery. It isn’t an adult science yet, I get that. So long as they otherwise are acting as males I have no issue with addressing them as such.
Personally, I cannot imagine NOT wanting to undergo the surgery. If everything I’ve been told about these people is correct, I would stop at nothing to achieve my correct body. There is loads more to being a man than a penis and testicles, but they are certainly an important part of a physical self identity. For me, so is my beard, my broad shoulders, hairy chest, and muscular angularity. Without my genitals I would feel less than complete, but I can accept that someone who is in all other ways male can feel complete that way.
Thomas though is pregnant. That changes everything. To ME, one of the most feminine, most defining aspects of womanhood is pregnancy, and the ability to conceive. That is where I have an issue. How can I comfortably address someone who is in all respects physically female, and pregnant, as a male? It is the MOST foreign thing from being a normal male as possible.
I would never be rude, but I’d honestly have a difficult time talking to such a person, hence my need for this thread.
Disregarding the debate at hand, I just wanted to say that I did appreciate you clarifying your feelings on the subject. I’m in rather the opposite position of not really emotionally understanding why this subject does bother anyone to this extent, and your posts have allowed me to understand where and why you stand. I know what it’s like feeling as though you get very little acknowledgment of and feedback on what you post (however inevitable that may be on a message board this size), so I wanted to quickly say this.
I see it more as he was starting to transition, then found out the female was unable to have a child, so he is putting the change on hold long enough to have a child. He will probably continue the process after the birth.
Acid Lamp, out of curiousity, would you be as disturbed by a biological woman who was impregnated by her MtF transexual girlfriend? If concept doesn’t throw you as badly off balance, it might give you a handle to work with on this subject.
Count me in as another person who has no problem with the situation as described in the OP. I am more interested, as I think Antinor01 said on the second page, about the possible legal ramifications - is there anything in Oregon (or any other) state law or federal law that assumes that the biological parent is always legally female?
Interestingly not quite as much, but it’s different. There the pregnant one is not the same person as the transsexual. I don’t understand how someone who would identify as female would be able to “perform” adequately as a male though either. This merits more thought, I’ll get back to you.
I think you are jumping to a whole TON of erroneous conclusions here, eleanor. The matt you think you are seeing is nothing like the person he has shown himself to be here on this board.
If you were to take a break and then come back and read what this guy has actually said in a more objective and less reflexively chauvinistic light, I think you will find that you have completely misinterpreted what he has been saying here.
Chauvinistic? That’s rich. But I’m just a person with a uterus, so it doesn’t matter much what I think. Sadly, mine is no longer capable of bearing children, so what does that make me? Not a woman? I’m not transgendered. What would I be in matt’s eyes? You cannot characterize someone by such a definition and not expect some blowback. Having a uterus is not some optional asset; womanhood is not something that can be assumed and then dismissed when it’s no longer convenient. I’m sure all this gender bending is just so much fun at parties and all, but we are discussing essential human characteristics here, not a multiple choice menu of trifles. I understand there are those who feel alien within their bodies. I feel for those people. I fully support their rights to jobs, medical care, full and happy lives. BUT–I will not be marginalized as if we are only a collection of body parts. If I were a conflicted lesbian, I’ll bet matt would be all concerned about my uterus not functioning.
This is ridiculous. I am sick of being looked at askance for being conventional or daring to ask questions or voice concerns–as if we all weren’t unique, just like everyone else. Clue phone: you hold no higher moral ground just because you step to the beat of a different drummer. Minority status does not automatically convey righteous or moral superiority. There’s more than one issue here that I’m trying to address. If you don’t get it, you don’t get it. So be it. You all are so smart and open minded and noble, you figure it out.
I do know I have not misinterpreted his posts in this thread-anyone who so much as questions this guy’s/gal’s choices is a bigot and drinking Hatorade. Childbearing is (up to now!) restricted to those of us who happen to have uteruses–but it’s like being left-handed or having a hairy back or some other minor physical deformity–now all can be included and all can be women. Bah. It’s no use–I’m sure to be demonized anyway.
I thought he was indeed someone else. Frankly, it’s between me and matt, so I’ll take it to PM’s. You all can keep your confusion. I really don’t care if you don’t understand. I don’t care if you’re male or female, mixed up sexually, happily transgendered or anywhere in between. If I have to explain it further, you’ll never understand. This is my take on his posts. Cope. It may even be possible you disagree with me or don’t like what I have to say. Meh.
I’ve still got no idea what you’re on about, but when you attack someone in a public forum the way you did here, I think you have an obligation to either defend your words, or retract them.
eleanorigby, please believe that I say this without sarcasm or disrespect intended. You are clearly upset, but I suspect that the contents of this thread are not the major source. I admit, I haven’t combed through this thread closely, but I didn’t get the impression anywhere that being female was equated with being inferior. I’d like a site for that, please. It seems to me that the emphasis here is how one delineates male from female and whether they even should be delineated completely, not on which gender is worth more.
ETA: it turns out that I have to get off the computer now and won’t be back for at least half an hour, in case you respond and are miffed that I’m not.
eleanor, I apologize. I tried to remove the word chauvinistic from my post but the board was hung up and I missed the edit window. You are a poster here who I’ve always thought of as being a really nice person. Thus I was a little shocked in reading your comments to matt, who I’ve also always regarded as a really nice and reasonable person.
I didn’t feel, and don’t feel now, that he intended to define women as nothing more than uteruses, no more than a woman would be defined solely by any other physical characteristic.
I, too, get annoyed at the very strong inclination of certain posters around here to show little tolerance for those who don’t fully and immediately embrace whatever alternative lifestyle that they happen to encounter as soon as they encounter it, and who have absolutely no patience with or understanding of those who have grown up thinking differently and may need time to come to grips with the fact that certain things are evolving that seem to defy logic and/or the sense of right and wrong that they’ve grown up with. People don’t change lifelong mindsets at the drop of a hat, and many in the tolerance crowd seem seem to forget this fact and act like anyone expressing reticence about this or that new kind of lifestyle is lower than dogshit and deserves absolutely no compassion or understanding or time in order to come to terms with these new ways of doing things. It’s the old intolerance in the name of tolerance phenomenon.
I once got into a disagreement with another poster around here over Rosie O’Donnell’s treatment of her partner’s parents upon their discovery that, not only was their daughter gay, but Rosie wanted to live with her. The parents, from their point of view and undoubtedly trying to do the right thing as far as they were able to grasp it, accepted their daughter’s homosexuality but felt uncomfortable at that early stage of the game with everyone knowing about it, and so they asked Rosie if she would consider perhaps buying a house in the neighborhood so that the couple could see each other frequently but not live together.
Rosie’s crude (and in my opinion uncaring if not outright hateful) was, "But I want to have sex with her! [By inference, anytime she wants.]
I thought that this was an incredibly rude and shitty thing to say to a couple of middle-aged parents who had only just found out their daughter was gay, and was critical of O’Donnell for saying it. The other poster’s response was essentially fuck 'em; they have no right to feel uncomfortable or embarrassed about anything, and fuck 'em again if they’re uncomfortable with the mental image of their daughter - who, again, they’d only just learned was gay - engaging in sex with Rosie O’Donnell.
I find this kind of intolerance close-minded, arrogant and cruel.
But I digress. I just felt that matt_mcl, of all the posters around here who may be inclined to behave that way, never to my recollection has.
Anyway, I think that there are several misunderstandings going on at once here and I do hope you’ll accept my apologies.
I’m not sure if this really belongs here, but I think it does, at least in part.
I’ve been thinking, eleanorigby, about the conflict that does exist between conventionals and unconventionials, so to speak, and these are my thoughts on the subject. I do tend to unknowingly veer off the relevant subject in discussions, so forgive me if this comes completely out of left field:
The metaphor used for cultural/other conflicting opinion is often that of the pendulum, which I think is actually a very good one. Public opinion, it seems to me, behaves quite like a pendulum, at first swinging to either side at extremes, and gradually swinging much less wildly until it approaches a comfortable middle point. Take feminism, for example. I think we can all agree that the pendulum is swinging much more moderately than it did when the feminist movement kicked off (the modern, '70s feminist movement, that is). Things still aren’t at a comfortable medium, but it is much better than it was.
Anyway, the pendulum regarding unconventional sexuality and gender identification has really only fairly recently been set in motion. As we humans are wont to do, the pendulum-like reaction to the previous and still not minority opinion that regards those unconventional in this area as shameful has, of course, become pride on the part of those who are unconventional. Unfortunately, since conventional and unconventional are still seen as being at odds, being proud of being unconventional (‘unique’) means that being conventional is then seen as inferior, which is very very unfortunate, because I believe that at the heart of the matter, it isn’t really so personal. And as more people begin to regard those unconventional as acceptable (which is inevitable, given that kids now are being raised with more and more awareness and understanding of those who are different), there will be less need for pride and the pendulum will stop swinging to such extremes.
This is a long, possibly ridiculously off-base way of saying: I’m sorry normal has become boring and inferior. It isn’t, of course, and I truly believe things will get better as people stop needing to be so defensive and begin to view both conventional and unconventional as normal. And for what it’s worth, I, and I don’t think I’m the minority in this (I hope, anyway), don’t think being different is better or worse, it just is. And it really is okay to need to get used to unconventional, and to ask questions about it and need time to come to view it with acceptance. Hell, I’m not even all that unconventional and I needed time to get used to and accept my own differences, and I don’t think I’m alone in that. I’m really sorry it isn’t always the case here that those who don’t understand unconventional behaviors are treated with the same understanding and tolerance that is asked of them. Try not to see it as a personal attack but instead the result of needing to be on the defensive in general so much of the time.
I hope this helps a bit. And I hope it isn’t a complete and utter hijacking of the discussion at hand.
eleanorigby, I’ve been very badly misunderstood. I know you’re not just a person with a uterus, and to be quite honest I’m not sure what I said to make you think I equate women with simply people who have uteruses. I’ve been loudly defending the opposite point of view.
It’s completely the opposite, and that’s one of the whole things this discussion hinges on. A woman who, for example, has her uterus removed, or who can no longer bear children, is still a woman. Obviously. Why? Because she identifies as a woman. She always has been a woman, she wants to continue being a woman, she is *comfortable *being a woman and would be extremely *uncomfortable *being, or being told she is, anything else. Nobody else is entitled to decide for her that she isn’t a woman, because that’s what she knows in her heart.
That’s why I referred to “people with uteruses” rather than “women,” because I was referring only and explicitly to anatomy. The point was not to reduce anyone to anything, to force anyone to identify in a way they don’t, to make up any new gender categories that I would require someone to fit themselves into. The point was just to talk about uteruses.
I would never question your gender or reduce you to your body parts, for exactly the same reason I wouldn’t do so to Thomas, or to any other transgendered or non-transgendered person. Biology isn’t destiny, women are more than their uteruses, and human beings are more than the sum of their parts.
Incidentally, I think some things have gotten badly confused. When I was talking to Acid Lamp about his/her (please excuse epicene pronoun; if you’ve identified your gender, Acid Lamp, I missed it) motives, I was referring only to Acid Lamp and the contents of his/her post, which were frustrating me - possibly unfairly, I admit; I’ll need to review the thread. Regardless, I wasn’t attributing those motives to anyone but Acid Lamp, and I wasn’t attacking anyone else. Also, I think, with respect, that your reactions to some of what the other people have said in this thread have bled over to me, and I don’t think that’s very fair.
I don’t blame anyone for reacting to this situation with bafflement or shock, though sometimes that shock could be expressed in ways that are less explicitly anti-trans. I understand that Thomas is in a tiny minority that lots and lots of people have never encountered or even contemplated encountering, so I do not anticipate that everyone will just jump right over to the camp of “oh, isn’t that lovely, let’s pick out a shower gift” right off the bat. An attitude of expecting everyone to spring from the head of Zeus with full knowledge of and sympathy for LGBT issues would, among other things, make it strange that I volunteer for an LGBT demystification group.
I understand, even if I disagree with, people’s reasons for freaking out about him. That’s why in my few posts in this thread, and in a variety of other posts on this board over the last several years, I’ve been trying to explain and set the theoretical groundwork for others to do such things as begin to grasp how someone can 1) identify as a man, 2) wish to have a child, 3) decide to carry the child himself. That’s the approach I’ve usually taken, and I took it in this thread up until the last paragraph of my post where so it surprises me to see how you’re characterizing me here.