A pregnant what?????

[goofinoff]

I'm so sick of that guy/girl. He's a girl. Chosing to live as a man. So it's not a MAN having a baby. He still has a uterus- that makes him still a she imho. If they want to have a baby- good for them. I am just sick of hearing about it as if it really is a MAN having a baby. (not refering to you op I am talking about the media)

Yup!! I agree!!

Reminds me of a Friends episode (I think when Rachel was in labor)..."No uterus, no opinion!"

 

[singingpixie]

How much testosterone is in this poor baby girl's system???

This is what worries me. He had stopped receiving testosterone injections long enough to have normal periods, so the baby shouldn't have been exposed directly, but who knows the effect of testosterone on his ovaries for all of those previous years.

 

[Todd&Copper]

I understand transgender.
What I bugs me is that it is exploited as a man having a baby as a medical miracle when in fact this is not the case.
It is misleading.

The media make it sound like this "miracle man" grew a uterus and conceived a child. The individual is medically a woman until and unless she has gender-reassignment surgery and medically becomes a man.

This person is a total fame-hound and I find the whole eagerness to exploit themselves disgusting.

 

[Kies99]

I'm so sick of that guy/girl. He's a girl. Chosing to live as a man. So it's not a MAN having a baby. He still has a uterus- that makes him still a she imho. If they want to have a baby- good for them. I am just sick of hearing about it as if it really is a MAN having a baby. (not refering to you op I am talking about the media)

THANK YOU!! Finally someone sharing my opinion!!!

 

[PghLybrt]

The media make it sound like this "miracle man" grew a uterus and conceived a child. The individual is medically a woman until and unless she has gender-reassignment surgery and medically becomes a man.

This person is a total fame-hound and I find the whole eagerness to exploit themselves disgusting.

The original place the story was told was The Advocate. A place where he should feel comfortable in telling his story. A place where I would expect to see his story so that I know there are other people out there like me and mine. Maybe he is going a little to far, I don’t know ,but really is it any different than straight couples publishing their engagements, weddings and births in the paper? Why is that ok but when come to the LGBT community we should just stay silent?

I think education brings tolerance and understanding, and from the looks of this thread more than one could benefit from it.

 

[hrh_disney_queen]

I wonder how much they are being paid for all the attention they are getting?
The first photo op of the baby must have brought a small fortune.

 

[smartestnumber5]

If a DNA test indicates female, that person is female, regardless of what she 'wants' to be. And, she can still can herself whatever she chooses.

Hmm, where'd you do your specialization in intersex medicine, because the bolded statement is certainly not agreed upon medically/scientifically?

For instance, people with androgen insensitivity syndrome tend to have XY chromosomes, male gonads, female external genitalia, and a female gender identity. I have NEVER seen a legitimate medical/scientific source which declares that such people are really male simply because of their DNA (nor have I ever seen any piece of literature refer to these women as "he"). Do you know of one?

I agree with all of this. It's possible to be frustrated with the media for framing the story in a misleading manner without referring to the person who had the baby as a woman. As someone who knows a couple trans people, it can be a kick in the stomach to have people continue to refer to you by the gender that you felt so uncomfortable being.

I'm happy for the entire family, but still think the media is portraying the situation as more of a medical miracle than it actually is.

ITA. This is not the first time a transman has given birth. (Though as far as I know, it IS the first time that a person who according to the law is male has given birth. And I can see why *legally* that might be of some interest.)

In terms of medical stuff, though, there's nothing miraculous or even that interesting about it. One would think that in terms of medical interest, cases in which women with XY chromosomes go through pregnancy and childbirth would be of much more interest.

So he does want to be a woman then.

I don't see that wanting to be able to give birth to a baby (when that is quite possibly one's only way of becoming a parent) means that one wants to be a woman.

Suppose that doctors were trying out a new procedure in which they transplant a uterus (with embryo already implanted) into a man and then give him a c-section 9 months later to deliver the baby. And suppose there is a male-male gay couple who desperately wants to have a child but can't afford a surrogate and isn't legally allowed to adopt in their state. If one of the men chose to go through this procedure, we wouldn't understand that as "wanting to be a woman", right? So why is this man's choosing to keep his uterus in order to produce a child understood that way?

 

[MsLeFever]

I'm so sick of that guy/girl. He's a girl. Chosing to live as a man. So it's not a MAN having a baby. He still has a uterus- that makes him still a she imho.

Um...my dear MIL no longer has a uterus. I'm pretty sure that she is still a woman. Gender isn't determined as simply as that.

 

[englishteacha]

Having a transgendered brother-in-law, I'm cool with whatever someone wants to do to be comfortable in their body. I'm just curious as to why this person had the baby when there is a wife involved. Was the wife unable to concieve?
Edited: I just read that his wife had a hysterectomy a long time ago.

 

[phorsenuf]

I don't see that wanting to be able to give birth to a baby (when that is quite possibly one's only way of becoming a parent) means that one wants to be a woman.

Suppose that doctors were trying out a new procedure in which they transplant a uterus (with embryo already implanted) into a man and then give him a c-section 9 months later to deliver the baby. And suppose there is a male-male gay couple who desperately wants to have a child but can't afford a surrogate and isn't legally allowed to adopt in their state. If one of the men chose to go through this procedure, we wouldn't understand that as "wanting to be a woman", right? So why is this man's choosing to keep his uterus in order to produce a child understood that way?

Because he wants to be a man, not a woman. A woman has a uterus so she can carry a baby. A man does not. So if he wants to be a man why keep the woman parts? Yes, it was explained earlier about the whole reconstruction surgery but he could very easily have had a hysterectomy which would have eliminated that. Would not having a uterus make him close to being a man?

I have no problem with her wanting to be a him I'm just trying to figure out why he would keep the ability to carry a baby. It just seems to go against what he's trying to accomplish.

 

[PghLybrt]

Because he wants to be a man, not a woman. A woman has a uterus so she can carry a baby. A man does not. So if he wants to be a man why keep the woman parts? Yes, it was explained earlier about the whole reconstruction surgery but he could very easily have had a hysterectomy which would have eliminated that. Would not having a uterus make him close to being a man?

I have no problem with her wanting to be a him I'm just trying to figure out why he would keep the ability to carry a baby. It just seems to go against what he's trying to accomplish.

Find me that doctor!!! My girlfriend has been asking for over 10 years!!! They all say no. Not until she reaches a certain age....what that age is we do not know.

 

[phorsenuf]

Find me that doctor!!! My girlfriend has been asking for over 10 years!!! They all say no. Not until she reaches a certain age....what that age is we do not know.

If I recall he was being treated by a Dr. to go through the process of switching genders (is that the right term?) If so would they not be receptive to doing such a procedure on him?

BTW I do appreciate having a civil conversation on all this. I do find it very interesting and enlightening.

 

[singingpixie]

Because he wants to be a man, not a woman. A woman has a uterus so she can carry a baby. A man does not. So if he wants to be a man why keep the woman parts? Yes, it was explained earlier about the whole reconstruction surgery but he could very easily have had a hysterectomy which would have eliminated that. Would not having a uterus make him close to being a man?

I have no problem with her wanting to be a him I'm just trying to figure out why he would keep the ability to carry a baby. It just seems to go against what he's trying to accomplish.

A hysterectomy is a pretty invasive surgery in itself, and without any external reconstruction I don't see the reason to go through all of that. I guess I see a pre-op trans man's uterus as kind of like an appendix- while it's not particularly useful, it's generally not a problem either.

I'm sure it's a very personal thing and some people may have a problem still having a female organ, but I could see why many people would want to spare themselves the cost and recovery.

 

[phorsenuf]

A hysterectomy is a pretty invasive surgery in itself, and without any external reconstruction I don't see the reason to go through all of that. I guess I see a pre-op trans man's uterus as kind of like an appendix- while it's not particularly useful, it's generally not a problem either.

I'm sure it's a very personal thing and some people may have a problem still having a female organ, but I could see why many people would want to spare themselves the cost and recovery.

Curious though. Even though he had all the "equipment" did he still ovulate and have periods or did the testosterone cancel that out?

 

[PghLybrt]

If I recall he was being treated by a Dr. to go through the process of switching genders (is that the right term?) If so would they not be receptive to doing such a procedure on him?

BTW I do appreciate having a civil conversation on all this. I do find it very interesting and enlightening.

So do I.


I can only speak to my life experiences.
The drs tell my girlfriend no because they would not want to do a medically invasive surgery for no reason. Even though she doe not like having a uterus and wants no part of it. She is female but probably does identify more male, she is not FTM.

Now my ex’s husband is FTM. He has had his uterus removed because they were other problems internally. He has not had bottom reconstructive surgery however because of the cost. They have triplets that the wife conceived.

One of my best friends , who is also FTM, has not had anything done because he cannot afford it. I hate to even think about where he gets his T from! I know that he does want children someday and if his wife was unable to conceive I would think that if things remain how they are he would not hesitate to carry the child.

 

[PghLybrt]

Curious though. Even though he had all the "equipment" did he still ovulate and have periods or did the testosterone cancel that out?

The T stops all of that.

 

[JaxJags08]

He wants to live as a man and a woman, maybe?

He obviously can't decide.

 

[singingpixie]

Curious though. Even though he had all the "equipment" did he still ovulate and have periods or did the testosterone cancel that out?

I'm not 100% sure of how this works, but as far as I know either testosterone itself cancels it out, or there is a blocker for the female hormones that does that. I do know for sure that from some hormonal means, Female to Male transgendered people (or at least those that have begun hormone therapy) do not ovulate or have periods.

In this particular case, he stopped hormone therapy and began to have periods again, in order to become pregnant.

 

[smartestnumber5]

Because he wants to be a man, not a woman. A woman has a uterus so she can carry a baby. A man does not. So if he wants to be a man why keep the woman parts? Yes, it was explained earlier about the whole reconstruction surgery but he could very easily have had a hysterectomy which would have eliminated that. Would not having a uterus make him close to being a man?

I have no problem with her wanting to be a him I'm just trying to figure out why he would keep the ability to carry a baby. It just seems to go against what he's trying to accomplish.

Well I can't speak for this person (or any other trans person actually), but as far as I can tell internal reproductive organs are not really what trans people want to change about their bodies. So I don't think merely having a uterus or ovaries or fallopian tubes would be that bothersome to trans people. I mean, other than during one's period or during pregnancy, the uterus isn't really doing much. You don't have to see it, you never really have to even think of it. The trans people I know seem mostly concerned about their external sex characteristics and the gender other people attribute to them--they aren't so much worried about their chromosomes or internal reproductive organs. None of them (of those who have not had bottom surgery) have had hysterectomies. As far as I know, that it is not part of the normal protocol for transitioning.

I suspect the uterus is not very important for trans people the same way it isn't very important for most non-trans women. Women get hysterectomies all the time and for the most part, it doesn't make them feel any less like a woman or any more like a man. (Compare, however, the feelings non-trans women typically have about their womanhood after a mastectomy compared to after a hysterectomy. My mother had a double mastectomy and a total hysterectomy two years ago. The hysterectomy has undoubtedly caused her more physical problems--she has no hormones left and cannot take any hormones because of the cancer risk so that definitely has significant sexual side effects. But no longer having ovaries/a uterus has done nothing to make her feel less womanly or to feel bad about her body. Not having breasts, on the other hand, is something that she cannot live with any longer and she's decided to undergo reconstructive surgery.)

Perhaps this man simply looks at having a uterus/getting pregnant as a means to an end and not as something which is inherently womanly. That's how I look at it. I often joke that I'd love to get rid of my uterus since I don't ever to be pregnant. Wouldn't make me feel any less like a woman or more like a man to know the uterus was gone. And though the thought of being pregnant makes me feel a little ill, I would probably still do it if it were the only chance I had to become a parent.

 

[smartestnumber5]

If I recall he was being treated by a Dr. to go through the process of switching genders (is that the right term?) If so would they not be receptive to doing such a procedure on him?

BTW I do appreciate having a civil conversation on all this. I do find it very interesting and enlightening.

My not-very-educated guess is that even in the case of a trans person, a doctor wouldn't be very receptive to doing a hysterectomy unless there is a particular physical problem for it, because generally most trans people don't get hysterectomies unless a) they are getting bottom surgery or b) there is a physical problem.

I found this guide to reassignment surgery--http://www.ftmguide.org/hysto.html--which seems to indicate that there are specific physical reasons why a hysterectomy might be a good idea once one has begun hormone therapy. But these reasons have to do with problems with taking high doses of testosterone while one still has ovaries (the uterus doesn't seem to be much of a problem at all).

I think the bigger issue, though, is that I don't get the feeling many transmen have much of a desire to change their internal reproductive system. So keeping the uterus is probably the norm for trans men who aren't in situation (a) or (b).