The fact that someone can’t even recall an episode of The Cosby Show without worrying about being branded a bigot is very telling, IMHO.
To refresh anyone’s memory who missed this, he bolded “everyone agrees” in reference to this situation being really strange. It’s this kind of nit-picky, hyper-offended bullshit that drives people away from your argument and makes them think you’re just being irrational. And you are.
Some people in this thread are trying to do little more than wrap their heads around something that is, to any sane person, a strange situation, and they’re being met with over-the-top, bitchy responses from a couple of posters who seem like they genuinely want to be offended and will take any opportunity, no matter how absurd, to feel that way.
I never did construct a PM for matt— I couldn’t find the words. When I am so angry that I cannot find words, I know that there is something significant at work and I will need to face it, whether I want to or not. So, I did a lot of thinking last night. I also received a PM from someone else which didn’t help, to put it mildly. But never mind that, I have a few things to say.
I’m back and I’m still upset and some of it has nothing to do with this Board, so please forgive me if I seem a bit unstable at present.
I am still deeply angry at having half the world’s population characterized as “persons with uteruses”. To be described as such, is in my eyes, to be regarded as inferior–NOT because of the uterus, but because of the characterization. To be seen as just that–there is no real analogy, only perhaps what slaves went through when their teeth were checked or they were talked about as if they weren’t there regarding their physical attributes. (I’ll pause here for all those who now think I’m comparing women to slaves. I’m not.)
Women are much much more than their sexual organs, as are men. The comment was so glib, so facile and dismissive that I could not see past it.
But I have read matt’s post in response to mine, and he is correct. I HAVE been conflating posts and for that I do sincerely apologize. I am grateful for what matt has said here re the persons with uteruses comment–I understand it, but it still rankles a bit. I fully acquit matt of malice–there are others here whom I do not. I am sorry, matt, to have “verbally” accosted you with such venom. I am very glad, though, to have my original judgement reaffirmed. I appreciate your patience and your forebearance. I understand you were looking for a way to precisely define this very unique situation–and what you say serves that purpose.
I am still of the same mind, though, regarding the other points in my post. We are all human, we all can feel the same pain and sorrow. I would ask that those here that follow less conventional lifestyles please be patient with those who may well have never imagined such things existed. Tolerance is not the same as approval. I hope that is clear to all. I like what matt said very much–it IS too much to expect shower presents to be picked out upon hearing about such an odd couple. And yes, they ARE odd–they are not freaks, they do not deserve harsh treatment, but they are out of the common way and that makes them odd.
We have all posted in anger or fear or anxiety at some point. What I most deplore about this board (and this goes much farther than this thread) is the intolerance and inability of those here to allow people their feelings. If you invalidate feelings, true dialogue cannot occur. Much of what has been posted by Acid Lamp and others is simply a working through of feelings and opinions. Acceptance is rarely immediate. Calls of bigotry and asshole-nish aid nothing. I don’t feel I can make presumptions about the LGBT community, but I know something of people and I think that they have faced a great deal of prejudice, hate, intolerance and even persecution. Such things are not right or just or good, IMO. So, I would presume to think that their defenses run high and they will defend as they find they have a voice and can use it.
But whoever said that the best defense is a good offense was an idiot–at least in reference to things like this. To be so quick to label people as bigots, as jerks, as morons because they do not immediately (or ever) fully embrace your POV is childish thinking and poor long term strategy. Discretion is the better part of valor. By that, I don’t mean a “don’t ask, don’t tell” kind of life or one that precludes situations such as Tom and spouse (wonderful gender neutral word, spouse). I mean advocates of X don’t have to go for the jugular at the word go. (this applies to those who would attack X as well).
God, I’m starting to sound like a goody-goody two shoes. “Why can’t we all just get along?” type stuff! But I am would like to see this Board become a place where questions can be asked, concerns be shared, without an overly deferential manner on either side.
To sum up, matt, I am sorry I hurled my invective at you. That phrase cut me raw and I also was shaken by the notion that someone I had always admired here had shown feet of clay. I hope I’ve made myself clear(er). I have to run some errands and go to work.
I find it helps if you stop giving a fuck about certain meaningless aspects of the story. Thomas Beatie wants to referred to as male? Hey, that’s great, knock yourself out, sport. As far as I know, it doesn’t change his legal status or rights/responsibilities any. Heck, I may as well change all the "M"s to "F"s on my various pieces of identification. I’d still have to pay taxes, obey the various laws, and I can still vote and sit on a jury and all that junk. There are still some societal biases here and there favouring M over F, or F over M, that I guess I could either take advantage of (or get screwed by), but that’s understandable.
In any case, Beatie is self-proclaimed male and has a uterus and can use said uterus to carry a child. Hey, that’s great, knock yourself out, sport. If I had a uterus, I might be using it in a similar manner, except I don’t like kids and don’t want any. Hey, that’s great, knock myself out, sport.
Why anyone would let themselves get worked up about this is a mystery to me. But, hey, that’s great, knock yourself out, sport.
Okay, This post is going to be long and rambling, so I’ll ask the forgiveness of you readers in advance. I’m also going to probably use terms that will offend some of you, So i’ll apologize for that as well. It is NOT my intention to do so, so if a word choice bothers you, try to remember that as you read.
So. When I posted this thread, it was a rather ill written expression of bafflement at an extremely unusual situation. The flaming aside i’ve given this matter a great deal of thought and have come to following conclusions.
This makes me uncomfortable for a number of reasons, but the most prominent one is my fear of total loss of what I suppose one could call gender specific attributes and customs. I’m still a young man, (28) but in my brief time here i’ve lived in an age where i’ve seen technology and culture evolve at an exponential rate. Part of what I have viewed has been quite progressive, a lot of it has bothered me as well. I’ve seen a call for total equality of the sexes, completely ignoring the very important differences between them. I’ve seen enough frivolous lawsuits and PC antics to make me ill. I’ve also seen great progression in tolerance, and understanding of others. It hasn’t been all bad, and certainly the good outweighs the ills, at least as I see it.
The problem i’m having with this is that as we blur those lines more and more, we are losing both what the definition of what it means to be of a gender, and feeding a growing minority of extremist culture on the opposite side. We are losing the good parts of masculinity and femininity in the name of making everyone feel accepted. A man is more than the sum of his organs, as is a woman, but surely one’s physical self identity is of significant weight in one’s self image. In the past, there were many, many, things that were exclusively the provenance of men. I’m not talking about civil rights here, we all agree that those are the property of everyone; I am speaking about that culture of manhood that I see rapidly slipping away.
It was good to lose the patriarchal, authoritarian, machismo portions of that culture. It is was worse for us to demonize other traditional male values, like Stoicism, strength, confidence, and that amorphous group of behaviours i’d classify as gentleman’s manners. We have lost a lot of good things in the pursuit of equality and tolerance, and for some reason Thomas’s bending of biology struck a significant chord within me. It was almost as if I thought: " Damn it. Now they are taking away the most basic biological definition of manhood." That may or may not be a logical thought. It might not be a polite one either. In my area, I see a lot of the hyper-manly machismo redneck, gangbanger, etc backlash against the progressive movement. This bothers me as much as the loss of the good stuff
It’s as if one must choose an extreme side to be accepted today. A centrist who accepts the good in traditional gender roles is a “bigoted Asshole” to one side, and a “sissy boy queer-lover” to the other. I don’t really know if i’m making myself clear, and i’m probably failing miserably, but I don’t think that we have to go all to one side. I don’t see why men cannot retain some things for MEN, and women keep some things for WOMEN. We aren’t all the same, and we shouldn’t try to be.
Trouble with this is that it suggests all MEN are the same and all WOMEN are the same, but that’s okay as long as all PEOPLE aren’t the same. I dunno that having two monolithic groups is necessarily any better than having one.
Besides, stuff for MEN and stuff for WOMEN varies from culture to culture. Wanna walk down the street holding your buddy’s hand? That’ll get you called all kinds of names in Brooklyn but hardly a glance in Riyadh. Like to see women wearing spandex in public? Brooklynites are in favour, Riyadhies… not so much.
In any case, there’s very little about Thomas Beatie that undermines gender roles. If it makes you more comfortable, think of her as a woman who is engaged in the very mundane act of carrying a fetus, but who also has some unusual feelings about herself. If male/female roles really are that fluid, Beatie can call himself/herself whatever he/she wants and you can call Beatie whatever you want, and what difference does it actually make?
I think it suggests that the overlap between the groups need not be all encompassing and that some things are exclusive provenance of one sex, even if those things are limited to pure biological functions
Acid Lamp–I don’t see things quite the way you do, but I can see where you would feel a loss of some kind. I would add to that it feels like an appropriation to of femaleness to me–only while it’s convenient. And then, of course, the return will be made to the preferred gender–until they want another child, perhaps. Or maybe Tom would like to know what menopause feels like. Or some other female thing. (I’m not saying Tom would do any of those things–but the potential is there). This strikes me as wrong, morally. I don’t see transgendered people as being morally wrong, and I think many of them make excellent parents (I’m sure that many of them are as messed up as parents as conventional folks).
I think it’s this appropriation that made me react so strongly. In a way, my tolerance is too good: I had no problem with accepting Tom as a man. I don’t think you get to have it both ways, though. I have said more than enough here. The issue has left me tired and saddened in an odd way. Perhaps it is too much to absorb all at once. I do wish this couple well and I hope this child gains acceptance in the world. The closest thing I can get the child to in my head is when the first “test tube” baby was born. She was viewed in the media as a sides show–I hope we have grown past that at least.
Bryan--you make a good point, but I would say that we have been told, quite forcefully, that to consider her a woman is an injustice to her. Where do we go with this? It’s wrong to call her a woman (when she clearly is one); she prefers to self-identify as a man–ok, I’m game. Ok by me. But wait–now she’s doing what only women can do and so now we can go back to woman status–and get called bigots for doing so. Catch 22.
Well, if someone gets in your face demanding “He’s a man AND he’s pregnant! ADMIT IT! ADMIT IT!” I suggest you just smile and nod and back away slowly.
That’s essentially what has happened over the last few pages here. I doubt any one of the most strident of supporters would do so face to face.
I would think that instead of adopting a mocking tone, you would appreciate the gravity with which most of us are approaching the situation. We are not laughing Tom off the board (so to speak). We are not dismissing the validity of the claims to basic human decency espoused by representatives of this community. We are struggling to understand and accept. I know I am pondering just what gender is–an essential I never had to contemplate before.
Does anyone not understand why I feel like I shouldn’t bother trying to discuss this stuff? Go ahead, make your fun; I hope it brings you joy.
By what standard is it morally wrong? He’s not hurting anyone by doing this, so I don’t see how morality enters into the equation.
Is there any particular reason why he shouldn’t get to have it both ways, though? Is there anything objectively wrong with that?
I doubt that this is going to have much effect on the kid, all else being equal. It’s not really a huge story right now, and in a couple of years, most people will have forgotten about it entirely. It’s not like anyone’s going to be able to tell which parent gave birth just by looking at them, and Thomas looks like he has little trouble passing, so I doubt anyone’s ever going to know that they’re not a traditional couple unless they go out of their way to tell folks.
No offence meant, eleanor, but how is this different from what you were accusing matt of doing yesterday? Women, as you so rightly pointed out, are more than just uteruses. So why does Thomas’s decision to use his uterus revert him to “women status?” If having a uterus isn’t the defining characteristic of womanhood, then there’s no reason Thomas can’t get pregnant and still be considered a man.
Also, can we please get past the “I’m not a bigot!” angst? There were only two posters in this thread who were tossing that accusation around, and one of them has already said he was going to retire from the thread to rethink his approach. I can absolutely understand why that accusation is upseting, but it’s hardly been the default tone for this thread.
Exactly. What’s more, for me as a man who has always been raised to see tolerance and acceptance as “good”, I find it distressing that I cannot wrap my intellect around this concept, and in addition my viewpoint is in opposition to what I am told is “good” and “progressive”. Is it likely to come up on an everyday basis? of course not, but I carefully weight any viewpoint that I maintain that is in strong opposition to what I am given to understand to be correct.
Thanks for your earlier post, eleanorigby, and I accept your apology.
I was hoping I could try and clarify my statement about uteruses, seeing that it has obviously offended you, for which I apologize. I was clumsy and didn’t explain myself fully, because I didn’t anticipate that when I tried to draw the distinction between people’s body parts and their gender, you read it as reducing their gender to their body parts, which was, in fact, the opposite of what I meant.
Let me try again. You have talked about Thomas’s getting pregnant as an “appropriation” of womanhood or femaleness in some way. My point is, how can he be appropriating it, when his own body allows him to do it naturally?
That’s what I meant when I spoke of pregnancy being limited not to women, but to people with functioning uteruses. Obviously, the vast majority of such people identify as women – but not all of them.
We didn’t have to confront in such a public way the case of an FtM actually using his uterus until recently (incidentally, this is not the first case I’ve heard of of an FtM getting pregnant, but I’ve only seen previous cases reported in the LGBT media). However, it is appropriate to remember that lots and lots of FtMs do have functioning uteruses (I’m dating one at the moment), even though most choose not to bear children.
More to the point, and in a way that speaks directly to your concerns, not all women have functioning uteruses. As you very rightly point out (and which, as I said, is my whole point), a woman who loses her uterus or whose uterus stops working in no way stops being a woman. But she does lose the ability to bear children.
Just the fact that all but the tiniest minority of people who become pregnant do identify as women, obviously means that pregnancy is equated with womanhood. That’s perfectly natural, and for tons and tons of women it’s very affirming and makes them feel very good about themselves and their gender when they are pregnant and have children or think about doing so.
But I think, among other things, that it’s important to recognize that this feeling can be misapplied. Now we came to this discussion talking about a pregnant person who does not identify as a woman. What about women who can’t become pregnant? I’ve heard many such women speak of feeling put down, reduced in some way as a woman, even being insulted by the comments of others about the fact they can’t have children. That’s part of the problem that we run into when we associate something a person’s body allows you to do with the way they feel about themself - and their gender. It’s not that we shouldn’t have those feelings – it’s that we should monitor for their bad effects.
It is unfair to blast him for infringing on an exclusive province of womanhood, among other things *because *of what that says about women who are unable to bear children.
This goes to your post in response to Bryan Ekers. It’s true – he’s doing something that, until recently, nobody ever did but women, for very good reasons. But that just makes his situation unusual – it doesn’t make him someone who’s changing his gender identity at will. Indeed, he says forcefully in the article that he hasn’t stopped IDing as a man, and I don’t see why he should have to when he’s doing something that his very own body allows him to do.
As I said, it is an unusual situation, and I’m not surprised that people have strong emotional reactions to it. I just hope I’ve laid some theoretical basis for understanding it better and reconciling the feelings that have been expressed with his own identification.
Miller–I am not unintelligent and I can read. You posted nothing that has not been said before. As I said–this thread is more about parsing feelings and opinions about this situation. Reiterating facts is a dead end.
I don’t care if it was one poster, once–I take the call of bigot/moron/asshole seriously, as should anyone. Or do words not matter anymore as well? Such claims by those who proclaim tolerance and demand it are not limited to this thread, in fact, the board is rife with them. Therefore, my calls to have it stop are pertinent.
I honestly don’t care if you don’t see this as a morals issue. That is your prerogative. I may mean ethics. I am not sure–as I’ve said more than once, I am thinking this through. I don’t claim to come to Pit threads (or any other thread) with my opinion fully formed and eloquent. Obviously, YMMV.
While I don’t have a problem with the situation, it’s not any cooler than anyone else’s pregnancy. What makes a “pregnant man” interesting is that men generally do not have the requisite parts to support a pregnancy. This person was born with all the parts, all he’s doing different than most women is self identifying as a man, taking hormones (which he stopped) and having cosmetic surgery.
So, it’s big news that a man got pregnant, I betcha if I had a uterus, vagina and ovaries, I could get pregnant too.
What WOULD be big news is if this man managed to impregnante someone, or if someone born with a penis and testicles instead of a uterus and ovaries got pregnant. Give me a call when that happens.
Yeah, now that you mention it, it’s interesting, but from a scientific POV, not that remarkable. If you gave me male hormones, I would probably grow a beard. If you took me off them, I could get pregnant (I might even be able to do both at the same time, not sure about that one). Neither of these is particularly interesting, medically. The fact that the same person would want to do both things is atypical, but that’s about it.
matt–my thanks. I have to go work soon, but you posted something that hit on the crux of the matter (for me).
But he is not a woman any more–he rejects womanhood; he has radically altered his physical appearance and had his most obvious womanly attributes surgically removed to show how much he wants to be a man. He wants to live life as a man–then he should do so–and not be woman when he wants to be or it’s convenient for him.
Reverse the situation: should a male to female person be a sperm donor? Go off the estrogen and progesterone so that their partner can have in vitro? Or just have sex with male penetration and all–and now I am confused because such a person would most likely have a male partner and he couldn’t have in vitro…I refuse to add surrogate lesbian in this mix.
Maybe this happens all the time and everyone’s fine with it and it’s just not out there in the mainstream media. To put it crudely and facilely–you can’t have your cake and eat it too. In Tom’s case, I suppose you can, but then you cannot be upset and angry if people call him a woman. But people are…
I have a headache. I need to walk away from all of this. I hope you understand that I am not condemning Tom or his choices. I am just bewildered and yes, uneasy about such things.
Cheesesteak–I laughed at your post. Thank you for the laugh.
We’re not all the same, but that doesn’t mean we need to invent differences that aren’t really there, and then insist people adhere to them.
Back home in North America, I have a friend who was uncomfortable to distraction on seeing a man wearing a pink shirt. ‘Pink is the colour of little girls,’ he complained, and lamented further: ‘Can’t we just keep that?’ Meanwhile, here in Holland, grown men wear pink shirts all the time. With neckties, no less – the very symbol of man-attire! And yet, they’re by and large quite comfortable with their genders, and the great majority of men go on dating women, having children, and generally interacting quite successfully in all the ways that male-female interactions are supposed to be fundamental to good order and culture. People have figured out how to live in the world even when the boys wear pink.
Some things about gender roles are just superficial trappings, and getting hung up about them – or worse, insisting that others adhere to them based on one’s own hang-up, is… well, all kinds of things, but none of them good.
But what of the “culture of manhood that [you] see rapidly slipping away”? Surely those personal attributes are more fundamental, more real, than a cultural assignment of a colour, right? Pink vs. blue is arbitrary, but some things are Truly for Real Men, no?
I hardly every get angry at anything. I rarely giggle. But I cried after watching a movie, once. And I’m a man. Really! Men can cry. Why should they pretend they can’t? Why should there be a cultural standard that not showing emotion is a Thing Of Men, and men who don’t suck it up and conform to it aren’t Real Men? What good does it do society to insist that males in particular need to be stoic? There are people who really are very stoic. And culturally, they may be raised that way. That’s fine. But creating a cultural background noise that insists Real Men are stoic, or strong, or confident is… well, a lot of things, but none of them good, I think.
And then, on the other side: what’s wrong with a strong, confident, woman? A stoic matriarch whose strength and reserve in times of crisis inspire confidence in even the men – but can we have this? Can this be real? Aren’t stoic strength and confidence a thing of Men?
My point is this: Men as uniformly strong, confident figures were never real, and the collapsing culture of manhood and ensuing sissification of society is no more real than the decline in ‘family values’ caused by the emergence of homosexuals from universal disdain (or is the causal relation vice-versa? I can never remember).
I don’t see what we’ve lost, and if we did, I don’t think it was the pursuit of equality that did it. If people are free to be strong, stoic, or not, as they feel the need, what’s lost? Predictability of how to live and act? Comfortable, authoritative rules for how to deal with the opposite sex? I say respect qualities like strength or stoicism or sensitivity to they extent they’re valuable, and to heck with assigning them to one colour of shirt or other.
Enter my same friend, again, who was baffled by how gays get along: ‘Like, when you spoon – who goes behind?’ He was surprised by the simplicity of my answer: “Whoever wants to, I guess.”
I get the impression that the fear of ‘collapsing culture of manhood’ – Acid Lamp isn’t the first I’ve heard it from – stems from a fear of losing the ground rules. It’s like with gays: men with men? That’s not in the convention! That’s not how families are supposed to work! You can’t just step outside the lines like that – what happens to the game if you don’t have rules?
So the family disappears, and men marry camels and women date toasters. But not really, because it’s possible to love and live without following this particular – or any – rulebook, just like men can wear pink shirts and still be men, and women can make the first move and still be women. And the same goes true for self-identity and social interaction. You can still have an image of who you are, including of your gender, even in the absence of a strong, cultural insistence that being a man means enjoying football or opening doors for women.
So don’t worry if someone sees themself as a man even though they have some female plumbing. It’s not an assault on Manliness, because you can totally be a man without having the same ISO 9000 Standard Manhood applied across the board.
(Anyway, your reaction here reminds me of something I’ve been thinking for a while, particularly since moving to Europe. I’m starting to believe that a major part of the male gender role in North America is insecurity. It’s important to look strong, and above all to be a man and obviously so. But challenge someone’s manliness, or challenge the convention of what manly is, and get a strong reaction. I haven’t fully developed that thought yet, but I’m thinking about it.)
This is so way beyond pink shirts… My sons own pink shirts. #1 son has a pink tie he picked out, all by himself, when he was 15, no less. Pink’s a color, like any other.
You know few Americans if those you know decry pink in this way. This is not an issue about Marlboro men and 1950s housewives.
IMO, Acid Lamp is wrestling with gender identity in a way he didn’t have to before–this is not comfortable or easy. Perhaps you’re trying to help. I keep coming back to the notion that this is some kind of teaching moment for all of us (but that’s probably way too idealistic).
I think I may have to just give up. Thank you matt, for listening and hearing me out. I wish Tom et al the best (and Sarahfeena is correct–this is not very interesting medically–although Tom will be the talk of the labor and delivery unit for some time).
I know I said I’d be gone, but I have to say something in here to eleanorigby, since she asked me not to waste her PM space for it.
You got the wrong idea entirely. I wasn’t trying to be amusing or coy at all. I’m sorry I tried to help; you’re clearly not worth it, and you seem to still hold a grudge over some silly thing I’ve long forgotten about. I should’ve known that getting involved in the midst of your apoplectic rage would only get me painted as a target too.
It’s just as well–now that I’ve stopped caring about the effect it has on your reputation, I find it kind of amusing.
