Pregnant Man!Follow

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/26/wpreg126.xml

“How does it feel to be a pregnant man?” he writes in the article.

“Incredible. Despite the fact that my belly is growing with a new life inside me, I am stable and confident being the man that I am.

It's a darn funny ol' world sometimes.

Next he'll want to be Governor of California.

That'll be a new band by the end of the week.

Sorry. it's been the top story on every local news broadcast here for the last 3 days. These are the same people that have 24/7 missing dog coverage.

lets nuke Oregon.

But that would only leave Washington separating California from Canada.

lol

Usually FTM have no desire to have children, by becoming pregnant themselves. I can't imagine it. ><



I'm not sure if that's just worded wrong. So is this guy just a lesbian who had a sex change in order to marry his girlfriend, or did he really have gender dysphoria?

I'm a bit confused....

Edited, Mar 26th 2008 8:02pm by BJordan

I'm just curious what legal definition of "man" is being used here. According to the article, all that was done was breast removal and hormones, but the genitals and reproductive organs were left unchanged.

How does that not just make this a woman with facial hair and no breasts? Maybe Oregon has some strange laws, but I'd expect that it's the reproductive organs and genitals that determine sex, not the presence or absence of breasts and/or facial hair...

Not when the person in question has all the working bits to become pregnant and carry a child to term it isn't...


I know that there's a whole cottage industry focused on arguing that gender identity isn't set in stone. And there are certainly medical cases to support their position. Kids born without any certain sexuality. But usually what happens is that if a child is born without a ******, uterus, ovaries, etc, that child is labeled as a boy, sometimes with surgeries involved if the ***** parts don't seem to be present.

When a child has a full set of female reproductive organs, that child is labeled a female (with possible surgical removal of anything that looks like a ***** in this case). But there's no gender confusion in that case. Got a uterus and ovaries? You're female, pretty much regardless of what your outsides look like.

Given that the person in question here clearly had the correct parts at birth, and still has them, I'm just questioning how any law can just label her something other then female? You can't even go down the "gender isn't certain" path...

But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!

Those poor Canadians

While I haven't been active as an Activist for the Trans Gender community for a few years, I do keep up with it as best I can. There are somethings that I say that may be out of date, but then I have more important issues these days to study.

According to a Recent New York Times Magazine story on Trans Men at historically Female colleges, also known as F2M's, don't have the surgery which creates a "*****" since it has been shown to have poor results. Also the costs are much higher then the cost that a M2F goes through to get a ******.

Most F2M's can pass for men after the breast reduction surgery and hormones. I've met several F2M's who I thought were born male, when I saw them for the first time. The younger one starts hormone treatment, the more successful they will be in passing.

The trend lately has been for trans gender persons to not have genital surgery and many states will accept a doctor's letter that states that they have change their gender.

So I expect that more and more we will hear about such "Males" giving birth in committed partnerships, otherwise known as Marriage.

Let's be clear though. This case is about sex. The problem is that the word "gender" can mean different things. One of the definitions says its synonymous with sex. Another says it can mean a "cultural sexual identity" (which is a much more recent definition). I used the term sex. Smash responded by saying "gender". I assumed he was using the definition of gender that is synonymous with sex, because otherwise he was just throwing an irrelevant statement in there.


I absolutely agree that gender identity can be arbitrary. However, in this case, we're talking about someone getting pregnant, so it's "sex" that matters. This person can think of herself as a male, dress like a male, and act like a male, but at the end of the day, she's clearly a female.

Proof once more that when posters show gbaji how little he knows about a subject, he tries to move the focus to the meaning of the words used in the posts.