The pregnant man is now a father

[Otto]

[QUOTE=nashiitashii]
Honestly, when anyone decides to spend money on fertility treatments in the pursuit of “it must be genetically related to me,” I find it incredibly selfish. Personally, I’m not interested in children at this point, but I’d rather adopt than make my own because I know there are so many kids in need of adoption in the US.
[/quote]

I tend to agree with you on this, although I think “it must be…” might be a little harsh. But if I ruled the world, insurance would treat fertility treatments as elective and not cover it.

@nashiitashii

There’s also an additional “you can’t have it both ways” thought that I have in regard to this situation. Biologically, men aren’t supposed to be pregnant, and this has carried over socially. If he wants to be recognized as a man, he should probably not engage in behaviors that would normally be exclusively assigned to women. I’m fine with people deciding their own gender, but I think this particular situation and the attention whoring around it is a bit ridiculous.

But if he has the capability of “having it both ways,” why shouldn’t he? And again, I think “attention whoring” is on the harsh side here.

[nashiitashii]

Otto, I’m pretty sure at this point you’ve decided I’m being bigoted about this, but I do feel very strongly that using one’s uterus to have a child makes them a woman, and that if he wants to be recognized as a man, he should not be doing what is biologically a woman’s thing. I’m not advocating that he chooses gender reassignment surgery, but that he chooses which gender he wants to live as. Giving birth to babies does not fall under the category of “things that males do,” and I’m not willing to concede that it’s okay that he wants to have it both ways and get attention for it. It’s not helping put a normative face on LGBTQ issues, and, although I’m fine with the vast majority of people falling under the LGBTQ umbrella, I don’t personally think that this type of behavior is good PR under any circumstances.

[Acid_Lamp]

[QUOTE=Otto]
But if he has the capability of “having it both ways,” why shouldn’t he? And again, I think “attention whoring” is on the harsh side here.
[/QUOTE]

Snip mine.

Because he cannot. He is not a *genetic *male with all the differences and organs that accompany one, nor is he a hermaphrodite. He is a trans gendered female. I’m perfectly fine with calling him male, but to be frank, a “man” has not given birth here.

If he had been a true born male, carrying a baby to term via some sort of special technological process that would be different. Even then, barring a birth canal, THAT man would not have “given birth”. At best, one could honestly say that the child was “delivered safely and to term”. I started a thread about this exact topic several months ago in order to try and figure out my views on the topic; after much discussion I’ve found that they have not changed. This sort of blurred definition of sex is neither necessary, nor honest.

[Otto]

[QUOTE=nashiitashii]
Otto, I’m pretty sure at this point you’ve decided I’m being bigoted about this, but I do feel very strongly that using one’s uterus to have a child makes them a woman, and that if he wants to be recognized as a man, he should not be doing what is biologically a woman’s thing. I’m not advocating that he chooses gender reassignment surgery, but that he chooses which gender he wants to live as. Giving birth to babies does not fall under the category of “things that males do,” and I’m not willing to concede that it’s okay that he wants to have it both ways and get attention for it. It’s not helping put a normative face on LGBTQ issues, and, although I’m fine with the vast majority of people falling under the LGBTQ umbrella, I don’t personally think that this type of behavior is good PR under any circumstances.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think you’re bigoted, I just think you’re thinking is a bit narrow.

There are a lot of things that used to fall under the category of “things males don’t do” and “things females don’t do.” Granted, not too many of them were of the magnitude of a man’s giving birth, but go back 100, 50, maybe even just 20 years and ask the people then if they thought, say, running for President was a fit pursuit for a woman. And I’m not really clear what “PR” has to do with anything.

@Acid Lamp

Because he cannot.

It appears that he can, and has. Why do you care?

@Acid Lamp

He is not a genetic male with all the differences and organs that accompany one, nor is he a hermaphrodite. He is a trans gendered female. I’m perfectly fine with calling him male, but to be frank, a “man” has not given birth here.

He is legally, socially and mentally a man. Just because he happens to be a man with a uterus doesn’t mean he isn’t a man. There was a guy who had breast implants to win a $100,000 bet. Is he a woman because only women have breasts?

@Acid Lamp

This sort of blurred definition of sex is neither necessary, nor honest.

1. This is about gender, not sex.
2. “Necessary” to whom"?
3. Not “honest” to whom?
4. Explain why you care again?

[Acid_Lamp]

[QUOTE=Otto]
I don’t think you’re bigoted,
He is legally, socially and mentally a man. Just because he happens to be a man with a uterus doesn’t mean he isn’t a man. There was a guy who had breast implants to win a $100,000 bet. Is he a woman because only women have breasts?

1. This is about gender, not sex.
2. “Necessary” to whom"?
3. Not “honest” to whom?
4. Explain why you care again?
   [/QUOTE]

Snip mine.

1. Reproduction is biology, that means sex not gender. Only those of the female sex can carry and give birth. That means xx chromosome. Stating that one thing is another, does not alter the nature of matter, or cellular biology. If it did, then I would never have to work again as I could state that my shit is gold, and how dare you not recognize that fact?

2. it’s not necessary to extend this sort of labeling to the Trans community in general. They are legally accepted as the gender the profess to be, regardless of biology or re-assignment status. That is enough without dumbing down the science to make a good headline.

3. See above. The statement that a man concieved, carried, and gave birth to a child is deliberately misleading in nothing more than an attempt to garner publicity.
   The couple are not social pioneers, they are attention whores.

4. They put themselves out for display and discussion, someone posted about it on this board for discussion. Therefore I care to discuss a topic I find interesting.

[nashiitashii]

[QUOTE=Otto]
I don’t think you’re bigoted, I just think you’re thinking is a bit narrow.

There are a lot of things that used to fall under the category of “things males don’t do” and “things females don’t do.” Granted, not too many of them were of the magnitude of a man’s giving birth, but go back 100, 50, maybe even just 20 years and ask the people then if they thought, say, running for President was a fit pursuit for a woman. And I’m not really clear what “PR” has to do with anything.

[/QUOTE]

Let’s just agree to disagree. I’m talking about biological functions that men cannot biologically do, and you’re trying to equate them with social activities, which are vastly different.

[Otto]

[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]

1. Reproduction is biology, that means sex not gender. Only those of the female sex can carry and give birth. That means xx chromosome.
   [/quote]

As has already been pointed out, there are a variety of possible chromosomal makeups that still equal female sex. And while only those of the female sex can give birth, here is someone of the male gender ho has given birth.

@Acid Lamp

2. it’s not necessary to extend this sort of labeling to the Trans community in general. They are legally accepted as the gender the profess to be, regardless of biology or re-assignment status. That is enough without dumbing down the science to make a good headline.

Really? Transpeople are accepted legally based on their gender in the United States? Can you name for me the federal statute that protects transpeople from discrimination? Can you list the states that offer this protection, or the states that allow transpeople to legally change their sex on their birth certificates? Can you name the states where transgendered spouses were denied the automatic inheritance legally given spouses because courts ruled that they were still legally their birth sex?

You seriously need to study up a bit more before you post.

@Acid Lamp

3. See above. The statement that a man concieved, carried, and gave birth to a child is deliberately misleading in nothing more than an attempt to garner publicity.
   The couple are not social pioneers, they are attention whores.

Wow, you can read minds? You can go inside the heads of this couple and determine what their motivations were in making their story public? Maybe your shit is really gold after all! And, since this person is legally, socially and mentally male, and since adult males are commonly called “men” in our language, it is not misleading at all to say that a man has given birth.

@Acid Lamp

4. They put themselves out for display and discussion, someone posted about it on this board for discussion. Therefore I care to discuss a topic I find interesting.

Seems more like bashing than discussing, but whatever gets you through the night I guess.

[Acid_Lamp]

[QUOTE=Otto]
As has already been pointed out, there are a variety of possible chromosomal makeups that still equal female sex. And while only those of the female sex can give birth, here is someone of the male gender ho has given birth.
[/QUOTE]

Irrelevant. The person in question is none of the above genetic anomalies. The biological, Chromosomal definiton of male is accurate for the vast majority of the population. Considering that the rate of people seeking gender reassignment or identifying as the opposite biological gender is somewhere between 1/5000 to 1/10000, the population is sufficiently small that the scientific terms do not need revising.

[QUOTE=Otto]
Really? Transpeople are accepted legally based on their gender in the United States? Can you name for me the federal statute that protects transpeople from discrimination? Can you list the states that offer this protection, or the states that allow transpeople to legally change their sex on their birth certificates? Can you name the states where transgendered spouses were denied the automatic inheritance legally given spouses because courts ruled that they were still legally their birth sex?

You seriously need to study up a bit more before you post.
[/QUOTE]

Nice straw man, none of that is relevant to the discussion which was on the scientific definition of the term. I don’t have to be an expert in trans gender studies to have an opinion on a factual matter.

[QUOTE=Otto]
Wow, you can read minds? You can go inside the heads of this couple and determine what their motivations were in making their story public? Maybe your shit is really gold after all! And, since this person is legally, socially and mentally male, and since adult males are commonly called “men” in our language, it is not misleading at all to say that a man has given birth.
[/QUOTE]

Anyone who goes on Oprah to flog their story is looking for media exposure, pure and simple. Also your logic in this point contradicts your previous one where you stated that such people had all sorts of irresolvable legal issues.

[QUOTE=Otto]
Seems more like bashing than discussing, but whatever gets you through the night I guess.
[/QUOTE]

Cheap shot. I don’t bear them ill will, and hope they have a happy life and are able to raise a healthy, well-adjusted child. I take issue with the deliberate twisting of an accepted term merely to sell papers.

[Otto]

[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
Irrelevant. The person in question is none of the above genetic anomalies. The biological, Chromosomal definiton of male is accurate for the vast majority of the population. Considering that the rate of people seeking gender reassignment or identifying as the opposite biological gender is somewhere between 1/5000 to 1/10000, the population is sufficiently small that the scientific terms do not need revising.
[/quote]

Since the very existence of transgenderism ably demonstrates that biology is not destiny. your continued insistence on genetic purity grows ever more disturbing.

@Acid Lamp

Nice straw man, none of that is relevant to the discussion which was on the scientific definition of the term. I don’t have to be an expert in trans gender studies to have an opinion on a factual matter.

Hey, you’re the one that brought up the incorrect notion that transpeople enjoy legal protections in their trans-identity. Don’t blame me if you were wrong. And the factual matter is that we have a person who is legally, societally and mentally male, who gave birth.

@Acid Lamp

Anyone who goes on Oprah to flog their story is looking for media exposure, pure and simple. Also your logic in this point contradicts your previous one where you stated that such people had all sorts of irresolvable legal issues.

There is a bit of a qualitative difference between “looking for media exposure” and the incredibly pejorative “media whore.” And my logic here doesn’t contradict anything I’ve said previously, because Oregon, where this father and the daughter he birthed reside, recognize and protect trans-rights.

@Acid Lamp

Cheap shot. I don’t bear them ill will, and hope they have a happy life and are able to raise a healthy, well-adjusted child. I take issue with the deliberate twisting of an accepted term merely to sell papers.

Which term is it that you object to being twisted? Pregnant? He was pregnant. Man? He is a man. Birth? He gave birth. Completely factually accurate, without the slightest of twists. You on the other hand have called these people “dishonest” and “media whores.” That’s hardly the language of someone who’s in their corner.

[Acid_Lamp]

[QUOTE=Otto]
Since the very existence of transgenderism ably demonstrates that biology is not destiny. your continued insistence on genetic purity grows ever more disturbing.

[/QUOTE]

Destiny?, Well far be from me to screw around with that. Here I was talking about factual reality, but if destiny is involved, well I’ll just go and shave my beard off except for that little bit in the middle of my upper lip.

[Otto]

[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
Destiny?, Well far be from me to screw around with that. Here I was talking about factual reality, but if destiny is involved, well I’ll just go and shave my beard off except for that little bit in the middle of my upper lip.
[/QUOTE]

Well, if you think looking like Oliver Hardy will help, by all means have at it.

[elbows]

Um, actually they went, reluctantly, on Oprah because they were about to be outed by tabloid papers. They, understandably, wanted some sensitivity in the presentation of the facts, not sensationalism.

If you saw them interviewed you’d know they were clearly uncomfortable with the attention.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

[QUOTE=nashiitashii]
Honestly, when anyone decides to spend money on fertility treatments in the pursuit of “it must be genetically related to me,” I find it incredibly selfish. Personally, I’m not interested in children at this point, but I’d rather adopt than make my own because I know there are so many kids in need of adoption in the US.
[/QUOTE]

By that standard, you really ought to consider any couple who deliberately bears a child to be selfish.

Personally, I don’t want kids. I determined long ago, though, that if I do, it will be one of mine and one of somebody else’s (whether as a stepchild or adoptee).

[Two_and_a_Half_Inches_of_Fun]

[QUOTE=GingerOfTheNorth]
Congratulations to them. I hope they can get some peace.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, because peace is what people who run to television shows and magazines want.

[FlyingCowOfDoom]

I can call my dog a cat all I want but she’s still a dog. I can dress her up in a cat costume and make everyone call her “Kitty” and feed her cat food and give her catnip and a scratching post, but…SHE’S STILL A DOG.

Scientific fact: Human men cannot have babies. I feel bad for this person, but cutting off your breasts and growing facial hair doesn’t make you a man.

Am I closed minded? Maybe. Am I insensitive? Maybe. Is that baby’s mother a man? Nope.

I wish this unusual family the best of luck and hope that they aren’t harassed as a result of this media exposure.

–FCOD

[Miller]

The most interesting thing about this story to me is that it highlighted the number of people who are accepting of transexuals, but only insofar as they completely inhabit their chosen gender. There seem to be a lot of people of goodwill who are still given the willies by the idea of someone falling somewhere between the two gender poles.

Still some progress to be made, I suppose, although things do continue to look up in general.