'Pregnant' man stuns medical profession

[Disney Doll]

I was actually kind of surprised to hear smartnumber5's assertion that the medical profession treats GLBT people differently.

I work in a Catholic hospital, where, if one believes the hype about Catholicism and how awful we all are, one would thing that our GLBT patients would be kept in a locked basement and have food slid under the door.

For all of the patients I have ever cared for, first, I never ask what their sexual orientation or preference is, because I really don't care who anyone sleeps with except as it may impact their health status (i.e-HIV, STDs...and neither of those are gay only diseases). Of course, that's no different than "straight" people...their lifestyles impact their health status as well. Realistically, if someone introduces someone of the same sex as their spouse, then it is relatively easy to figure out that they are gay, but I don't really care about that. It doesn't impact the manner in which I care for them.

As far as the original post, the person carrying the child is genetically a woman, so therefore capable of carrying a child. For a part of her/his life, she/he has chosen to attempt to alter what she/he could to give the appearance of a man...fine with me. But the scientific fact is that she/he is genetically female, no matter what she/he appears to be physically, so carrying a child should be no issue from a purely scientific standpoint.

I do agree that the couple seems to making an issue of this for some type of profit. That I disagree with, and sexual orientation, gender identity or anything else has nothing to do with why I feel this way.

 

[smartestnumber5]

People seem to think we determine male or female by looking at body parts. So, if you change the appearance of their 'parts', they are a different sex. That isn't true at all. We can determine if someone was male or female from a drop of blood. They could have had all of their reproductive parts removed at some point and their gender is still absolutely clear in their DNA. When it is not clear, it's a genetic anomaly. It's that simple.

Huh? Of course we classify sex based on body parts. When your children were born did the doctor say "Now let me just do a quick DNA test and I'll let you know what sex they are?" For all the children born in my family, the doctor just looked at the genitalia and said "It's a girl" or "It's a boy."

I don't know why anyone would think that DNA = sex given the existence of intersex people that I've been talking about. As I said before women (I say women because they generally very strongly identify as women and they look stereotypically like "models"--hence the most womenly of women according to our culture) with AIS have XY chromosomes and sometimes testes, but they also have totally "normal" looking female genitalia, full round breasts, little body hair, and a defined waist. Many such girls do not know their situation until they they hit puberty; some don't know until well into adulthood because their parents lie to them. If DNA = sex, then all of these women are really male. Funny, AIS women don't *feel* male and our normal concept of sex wouldn't pick them out as male given how they look, how they live, and how they are treated in society. I guess all of their husbands would now be in a relationship with another man? (Here are pictures and video of one woman who has long be rumored to have AIS. There's no way to know if that's true, but suppose it is--does that mean that a large portion of the assumed straight male population in the U.S. has been lusting after another male? http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/adc/10103987A~Jamie-Lee-Curtis-Posters.jpg, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOVPB82VCGY,

Then of course you have the intersex people who have combinations of chromosomes like XXY or XXX. If DNA = sex, then what sex are they? Nothing. A 3rd and 4th sex? To know the answer (if there is one), you'd have to look at things like genitalia, reproductive organs, and those person's gender identity--exactly the things you are saying are irrelevant to the question of what sex a person is. And this is what medical professionals, therapists, and parents actually do in such cases--the DNA doesn't tell them what sex the child should be identified as. That determination must be made on the basis of a much wider set of factors. So it simply cannot be that sex = DNA.

Intersexuality is rare of course (about 1 in 200 cases I think), but it still creates a huge hole in an any attempt to define sex in the way people on this thread are trying to do. You can't simply ignore these cases as exceptions or genetic abnormalities. If you ignore 1 in every 200 people in trying to define sex, then your definition is clearly incomplete and false. That has been the lesson that more and more people in the sciences and medical profession have been taking away from the cases of intersex people--that sex is much, much, much more complicated than anyone thought.

 

[Nikel]

Gender is classified by sex.

Actually sex is biological, and gender is a social construct.

I was actually kind of surprised to hear smartnumber5's assertion that the medical profession treats GLBT people differently.

I work in a Catholic hospital, where, if one believes the hype about Catholicism and how awful we all are, one would thing that our GLBT patients would be kept in a locked basement and have food slid under the door.

For all of the patients I have ever cared for, first, I never ask what their sexual orientation or preference is, because I really don't care who anyone sleeps with except as it may impact their health status (i.e-HIV, STDs...and neither of those are gay only diseases). Of course, that's no different than "straight" people...their lifestyles impact their health status as well. Realistically, if someone introduces someone of the same sex as their spouse, then it is relatively easy to figure out that they are gay, but I don't really care about that. It doesn't impact the manner in which I care for them.

Which is how it should be IMO. But unfortunately that's not the case everywhere.

 

[Charade]

Huh? Of course we classify sex based on body parts. When your children were born did the doctor say "Now let me just do a quick DNA test and I'll let you know what sex they are?" For all the children born in my family, the doctor just looked at the genitalia and said "It's a girl" or "It's a boy."

I don't know why anyone would think that DNA = sex given the existence of intersex people that I've been talking about. As I said before women (I say women because they generally very strongly identify as women and they look stereotypically like "models"--hence the most womenly of women according to our culture) with AIS have XY chromosomes and sometimes testes, but they also have totally "normal" looking female genitalia, full round breasts, little body hair, and a defined waist. Many such girls do not know their situation until they they hit puberty; some don't know until well into adulthood because their parents lie to them. If DNA = sex, then all of these women are really male. Funny, AIS women don't *feel* male and our normal concept of sex wouldn't pick them out as male given how they look, how they live, and how they are treated in society. I guess all of their husbands would now be in a relationship with another man? (Here are pictures and video of one woman who has long be rumored to have AIS. There's no way to know if that's true, but suppose it is--does that mean that a large portion of the assumed straight male population in the U.S. has been lusting after another male? http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/adc/10103987A~Jamie-Lee-Curtis-Posters.jpg, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOVPB82VCGY,

Then of course you have the intersex people who have combinations of chromosomes like XXY or XXX. If DNA = sex, then what sex are they? Nothing. A 3rd and 4th sex? To know the answer (if there is one), you'd have to look at things like genitalia, reproductive organs, and those person's gender identity--exactly the things you are saying are irrelevant to the question of what sex a person is. And this is what medical professionals, therapists, and parents actually do in such cases--the DNA doesn't tell them what sex the child should be identified as. That determination must be made on the basis of a much wider set of factors. So it simply cannot be that sex = DNA.

Intersexuality is rare of course (about 1 in 200 cases I think), but it still creates a huge hole in an any attempt to define sex in the way people on this thread are trying to do. You can't simply ignore these cases as exceptions or genetic abnormalities. If you ignore 1 in every 200 people in trying to define sex, then your definition is clearly incomplete and false. That has been the lesson that more and more people in the sciences and medical profession have been taking away from the cases of intersex people--that sex is much, much, much more complicated than anyone thought.

How do you classify the 1 in 200? Or should we (as suggested earlier in this thread by another poster) do away with sex/gender classifications? Do they serve a practical purpose anymore? Maybe we should just use a percentage. If you're more than 50 percent "female" bits, you're female. But are we really ready to turn 10s of thousands of years of history on it's head? Perhaps in the future, we can correct this anomaly through genetic manipulation. That of course assumes people believe it's a genetic defect.

 

[Charade]

Actually sex is biological, and gender is a social construct.

And it's pretty universal. For a reason. Can you point to any society (past or present) that compeletly reveresed the traditional gender roles of men and women?

 

[Nikel]

And it's pretty universal. For a reason. Can you point to any society (past or present) that compeletly reveresed the traditional gender roles of men and women?

By traditional, I'm assuming you mean current US gender roles?

 

[Charade]

By traditional, I'm assuming you mean current US gender roles?

No, the whole world.

 

[Nikel]

No, the whole world.

Maybe I need you to give me an example of what you consider a gender role/expectation then. Or are you saying that you think the entire world does gender the exact same?

 

[smartestnumber5]

How do you classify the 1 in 200? Or should we (as suggested earlier in this thread by another poster) do away with sex/gender classifications? Do they serve a practical purpose anymore? Maybe we should just use a percentage. If you're more than 50 percent "female" bits, you're female. But are we really ready to turn 10s of thousands of years of history on it's head? Perhaps in the future, we can correct this anomaly through genetic manipulation. That of course assumes people believe it's a genetic defect.

Depends on who you ask. Up until 30 years ago doctors insisted that a child had to be made one or the other by surgical means no matter the consequences for their sexual functioning or their emotional health.

Luckily people with intersex conditions have banded together and have made changes to the medical treatment that intersex babies receive.

I believe the position of those at the Intersex Society of North America (www.isna.org but the website isn't working at the moment) is no surgery unless necessary for medical means (i.e. a blocked urethra). They do think that given the way that sex/gender functions in our culture that it would be too hard for a child to be labeled "neither" or "in-between," so they support assigning intersex children either male or female as babies. The assignment should be made trying to match the child to what sex s/he is likely to identify as as an adult. (Hence, AIS women who have XY chromosomes should be assigned "female" because most of the time they do end up strongly identifying as female throughout their lives. Knowing that fact, it would be ridiculous to assign them male based solely on their chromosomes.) But this assignment has to be understood as preliminary. As the child gets older and reaches puberty s/he needs to make a choice about whether they would like to go through puberty as the sex they have been assigned, or whether they might want to have the adult body of the other sex. So while a particular child might be labeled "male" it is always to be understood that really the label is "male until decided otherwise." Of course, for the child to function in the world the "until decided otherwise" is left out when talking to the rest of the world. And many people who are intersex still embrace the label of "intersex" so there is a sense in which they reject the either/or male/female labeling system.

FYI, it is not the case that all cultures have always had an either/or male/female labeling system. Many cultures have had a 3rd option--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender#Third_sex_in_biology.

 

[poohandwendy]

Huh? Of course we classify sex based on body parts. When your children were born did the doctor say "Now let me just do a quick DNA test and I'll let you know what sex they are?" For all the children born in my family, the doctor just looked at the genitalia and said "It's a girl" or "It's a boy."

I don't know why anyone would think that DNA = sex given the existence of intersex people that I've been talking about. As I said before women (I say women because they generally very strongly identify as women and they look stereotypically like "models"--hence the most womenly of women according to our culture) with AIS have XY chromosomes and sometimes testes, but they also have totally "normal" looking female genitalia, full round breasts, little body hair, and a defined waist. Many such girls do not know their situation until they they hit puberty; some don't know until well into adulthood because their parents lie to them. If DNA = sex, then all of these women are really male. Funny, AIS women don't *feel* male and our normal concept of sex wouldn't pick them out as male given how they look, how they live, and how they are treated in society. I guess all of their husbands would now be in a relationship with another man? (Here are pictures and video of one woman who has long be rumored to have AIS. There's no way to know if that's true, but suppose it is--does that mean that a large portion of the assumed straight male population in the U.S. has been lusting after another male? http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/adc/10103987A~Jamie-Lee-Curtis-Posters.jpg, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOVPB82VCGY,

Then of course you have the intersex people who have combinations of chromosomes like XXY or XXX. If DNA = sex, then what sex are they? Nothing. A 3rd and 4th sex? To know the answer (if there is one), you'd have to look at things like genitalia, reproductive organs, and those person's gender identity--exactly the things you are saying are irrelevant to the question of what sex a person is. And this is what medical professionals, therapists, and parents actually do in such cases--the DNA doesn't tell them what sex the child should be identified as. That determination must be made on the basis of a much wider set of factors. So it simply cannot be that sex = DNA.

Intersexuality is rare of course (about 1 in 200 cases I think), but it still creates a huge hole in an any attempt to define sex in the way people on this thread are trying to do. You can't simply ignore these cases as exceptions or genetic abnormalities. If you ignore 1 in every 200 people in trying to define sex, then your definition is clearly incomplete and false. That has been the lesson that more and more people in the sciences and medical profession have been taking away from the cases of intersex people--that sex is much, much, much more complicated than anyone thought.

1) The existence of intersex people isn't proof of anything other than genetic anomaly. We are already aware that happens.
2) Rumors about Jamie Lee Curtis are irrelevant. (nice use of video for extra shock and awe) Let's talk about fact. There is nothing especially titillating about the fact that heterosexual men can be attracted to someone who looks like a female, but isn't.
3) Sex absolutely is classified by DNA. In some, there is an anomaly so they are not simply male or female. I am not sure why that is relevant.
4) Intersex people do not create a whole in defining sex any more than someone born without legs creates a whole in defining a baby as human. They are the exception.

 

[SandraVB79]

100% aggreeance..

Just had to laugh (in a sad sorta way) that you had to throw the
'FOR THE RECORD' in there....just to avoid someone jumpin on it...

Yeah, well, I didn't want to imply that "normal" families abused their children and in case one of my neighbours (all very conservative muslims, who don't believe in "gay") reads this, to protect myself

 

[tiggersmom2]

1) The existence of intersex people isn't proof of anything other than genetic anomaly. We are already aware that happens.
2) Rumors about Jamie Lee Curtis are irrelevant. (nice use of video for extra shock and awe) Let's talk about fact. There is nothing especially titillating about the fact that heterosexual men can be attracted to someone who looks like a female, but isn't.
3) Sex absolutely is classified by DNA. In some, there is an anomaly so they are not simply male or female. I am not sure why that is relevant.
4) Intersex people do not create a whole in defining sex any more than someone born without legs creates a whole in defining a baby as human. They are the exception.

Excellent post! ....as usual.

 

[lillielil]

I was actually kind of surprised to hear smartnumber5's assertion that the medical profession treats GLBT people differently.

I work in a Catholic hospital, where, if one believes the hype about Catholicism and how awful we all are, one would thing that our GLBT patients would be kept in a locked basement and have food slid under the door.

It happens more often than you'd think, and often in subtle ways. For example, my last PCP refused to give me a referral to a gynocologist because he though that I'd never had "real" sex. Nevermind that I was 23 at the time - his personal prejudice lead him to give me care that wasn't as good as a straight woman would have gotten.

 

[Passions71203]

Wow! I understand the idea of wanting to have a child. But, why not consider adoption instead of this?

I think a man having a baby is bizarre. People are arguing she's really a female. IMHO, if you're born a woman and go through extreme measures like a sex change, living and becoming legally known as man, then I'm going to recognize you as a man, whether you left your ovaries in there or not.

Of course, if my opinion doesn't concur with yours, I'm sure to labeled "judgmental". So be it. I'm sure the majority of the world isn't ready for pregnant men either.

Agree!!

For example, my last PCP refused to give me a referral to a gynocologist because he though that I'd never had "real" sex. Nevermind that I was 23 at the time - his personal prejudice lead him to give me care that wasn't as good as a straight woman would have gotten.

Now that is just sad on the doctors part

 

[PghLybrt]

It happens more often than you'd think, and often in subtle ways. For example, my last PCP refused to give me a referral to a gynocologist because he though that I'd never had "real" sex. Nevermind that I was 23 at the time - his personal prejudice lead him to give me care that wasn't as good as a straight woman would have gotten.

It does!! One ,that I went to, handed me a pamphlet and then told me she really didn’t know what to do with me. So about 4 doctors later I found one (about 1 hr away).

And Charade........I am sorry to inform you but your state is not as friendly as you would think. I live here too. I know how I am treated, how my friends are treated. We still live with discrimination. We still live with threats of violence (sometimes acted upon). I only wish you could walk with me, for a week, and experience what I do.

 

[smartestnumber5]

1) The existence of intersex people isn't proof of anything other than genetic anomaly. We are already aware that happens.
2) Rumors about Jamie Lee Curtis are irrelevant. (nice use of video for extra shock and awe) Let's talk about fact. There is nothing especially titillating about the fact that heterosexual men can be attracted to someone who looks like a female, but isn't.
3) Sex absolutely is classified by DNA. In some, there is an anomaly so they are not simply male or female. I am not sure why that is relevant.
4) Intersex people do not create a whole in defining sex any more than someone born without legs creates a whole in defining a baby as human. They are the exception.

Maybe I don't understand what you are saying.

Are people with XY chromosomes (ALL of them) male or not? If being male = by definition having XY chromosomes, then people with AIS MUST be male. If being female = having XX chromosomes, then people with XO or XXX chromosomes by definition are not male or female. Is this what your position is? That is the only thing I can see that you are saying.

If so, then what you believe appears to go against the view of the medical professionals and mental health professionals who deal with intersex cases and people who actually are intersex. On what basis were you able to come to this conclusion when they have failed to do so?

ETA: Even ignoring intersex issues, I don't see how the concept of "sex" could be defined in terms of DNA, since DNA was not discovered until the late 1800s, and presumably the concept of sex existed and was routinely (and correctly) employed before anyone knew about DNA. So do we now have a different concept of sex then they did in 1650? Did the sex of people change between 1650 and now? Scholars of conceptual analysis have made the same point about water. As it turns out, water is made of H20. But it cannot be that the definition of the concept "water" = "H20" since people knew about water before they knew about H20, and the term "water" for someone in 1200 means the same thing that the term "water" means for us today.

 

[Mr Man]

I know you are sincere and I'm always happy to try to have people understand those different from themselves , I think its awesome that you want to know!

The GLBT term is an all inclusive term, since thread was originally about a transgendered person that quickly evolved into a gay and lesbian also thread its just a quick way to be inclusive of everyone in the homosexual and transgendered community.

I don't consider being GLBT a preference, I consider it the way one is born, its not a lifestyle , its not a preference its what you are. Its the same way one is born heterosexual. I could go on and on but that is going way off topic and certainly a whole new thread in itself .

I really believe that where you live in the country dictates the amount of discrimination one runs into, in NY , in this day and age, I am taken back then discriminated against, I don't expect it anymore, thats a good thing, but is still alive and well! The further away from NYC you get the more you can expect to run into it.

I don't believe that health care professionals should discriminate against anybody for any reason, you are a healer , I believe in your Hippocratic oath you are agreeing to heal all people, not just the ones that fit into your personal idea of religion and preference. I wish I could be sure of that, but I'm not.

I don't see how being a kind person or just a plain decent human being would make you refuse medical care or any service to a GLBT person, or how doing so would be any harm to your religious beliefs.

Ill give you a case in point, at my job I was asking for health care benefits for my partner, my union shop steward is a born again Christian. He fought for me with all his might and we did get the benefits. The members of his church tryed to stop him, they made it uncomfortable to be in his church, his religion , is his life!

His comment to me was, I am your shop Steward, my job is to look out for your best interest, my religious beliefs and what I think of your situation have nothing to do with me doing what I agreed to do, take care of ALL the members of the union.

Its a shame all people cant think that way, sadly they don't, and I think it makes them judgmental, and bigots. Just one persons opinion of course.

Any other questions fire away Mr Man, happy to answer to the best of my ability always, and always enjoy a good back and forth!

Thanks for the response. Makes sense to me. Nature vs nurture is always a tricky thing to discuss. I am comfortable with the knowledge that I have absolutely no idea which is ascendant......er both? lol

I also agree with the "ethic of reciprocity" er Golden Rule- "treat others as you would like to be treated." This is the basis of human rights IMO and it appears that over 20 major religions agree with this statement. Of course, those who don't "mind" being mis-treated kind of skew the concept......hehhe

I don't have any more questions prepared (slept in, forgot my laptop at home....had to go back to get it.....been a hectic morning).

Have a nice day (waving)

 

[JennyMominRI]

Agree!!


:

This thumbs up was given to the person who said why didn't they adopt.. Sorry, I can't find that exact post...Just wanted to say that it would probably be very difficult for people like them to adopt...I was often asked why I didn't adopt..Because no one would have let me

 

[smartestnumber5]

It happens more often than you'd think, and often in subtle ways. For example, my last PCP refused to give me a referral to a gynocologist because he though that I'd never had "real" sex. Nevermind that I was 23 at the time - his personal prejudice lead him to give me care that wasn't as good as a straight woman would have gotten.

I know a lesbian who has genital warts. She went to a PCP for a check up and mentioned some problems in the female area and the PCP said, "Oh well it's good that since you're a lesbian we know it's not an STD."

When GF and I got together we decided that we should both be tested for STDs. The doctors seemed to think it wasn't necessary at all because lesbians can't transfer STDs (and I've even had male partners before!) and kind of rolled their eyes while the did the tests. And this was on a university campus where when a straight woman comes in the first thing they think is wrong with her is either an STD or pregnancy!

Of course, it is true that women who have only same-sex contact have much lower rates of STD transmission, but it is still possible, and given that the medical community seems blind to it (and I've read studies that lesbians have lower rates of going to the gynecologist than straight women) I wouldn't be surprised if STDs go untreated more often in lesbians.

 

[Passions71203]

This thumbs up was given to the person who said why didn't they adopt.. Sorry, I can't find that exact post...Just wanted to say that it would probably be very difficult for people like them to adopt...I was often asked why I didn't adopt..Because no one would have let me

well with as many children in the system needing to be adopted, I think they should let people like them adopt.