'Pregnant' man stuns medical profession

[okeydokey]

So will he be the baby's mother or the baby's father?

 

[Deb in IA]

I don't understand the hype. It's not a man having a baby, it's a female who wants to be a man. There is nothing medically exceptional about this case at all.

I agree. And I think the title is misleading.

I don't think any medical personnel would be "stunned" about this case. It is very straightforward. He still has the female reproductive organs he was born with, so becoming pregnant and carrying a baby is quite possible.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

So will he be the baby's mother or the baby's father?

 

[bumcat]

There's no miracle here. It's a female having a baby regardless of what male parts she now has and how she looks on the outside. Why is this even news?

Sounds like this decision was made after her partner could not have babies. Doesn't sound like it was planned.

 

[donald&daisy]

I don't see anything wrong about it. I think it is great they even have this option since the wife is unable to concieve.

 

[momof3disneyholics]

Hmm, I guess I should monitor this thread since it should tell me the kinds of attitudes GF and I have to look forward to when we have kids in a few years.

We are both women--neither of us is changing our body in any way. But since GF wears a lot of men's clothes and likes to keep her hair short people often mistake her for a guy when they don't look closely enough to notice that she has breasts. I'm not feminine at all either, but I have a much bigger chest and I usually keep my hair at least to my shoulders, so people never misread my gender.

GF is the one who will be bearing the children and we have already gotten many surprised looks when we've told people about that--they seem to assume that I'm the one who's going to bear the child just because I look a little more feminine . I guess people assume that somehow long hair and wearing female clothing is a requirement for having a baby? I don't understand this at all. A uterus is a uterus. GF likes short hair and men's clothes AND she very much wants to experience pregnancy and breast feeding. I like longer hair and men's clothes don't fit me and I show more cleavage, AND I have absolutely no interest in using my uterus or breasts for reproductive purposes.

Maybe when we go to OB/GYN appointments we should dress GF all in pink so that they don't refuse to treat her .

Ok, I see your point, and honestly, I don't think there is anything wrong with what you're doing. This person IS a man, he is legally a man. You can't claim to be a man, then want to be a woman so you can have a baby. There should be no flip flopping when it comes to gender. How did this "man" get to be a legal man anyway?
You are your partner are both woman, I'm assuming, so that is completely different. Don't be so sensitive. You and your partner having a baby is completely different from what we are talking about.

 

[StrollPatrolMom]

What is there to say? Two people are having a baby and because they are doing so in an unconventional way they are being treated badly by the medical community and "family" and "friends" around them. Not uncommon at all in the GLBT community--and very common for transgender folks to get substandard medical care and ridicule from supposed medical professionals.

gee, how about making it what its about, the BABY...does anyone in the medical community know what the effects of "his" having undergone testosterone will be on the baby???...or its just a me, me, me world and if it feels good and you want it do it and everybody else is supposed to be ok with it.

I agree, if you wanna be a man be a man...men don't make babies.

 

[Cool-Beans]

There is nothing stunning here. A woman is having a baby.

The only remarkable thing is that she was living as a man for a while...and even that is nothing new.

 

[SandraVB79]

The article states that "he" is legally a man. What does it take to become that if this person still has important female parts? Because essentially here we have two women who are married. How is this allowed but not gay marriage?

I know here you can change your gender (well, it's a long procedure, you can't do it just like that), but it doesn't require to have your body changed completely. Those surgeries are not without risk and very expensive and not too many doctors/ hospitals do them.

I don't understand the hype. It's not a man having a baby, it's a female who wants to be a man. There is nothing medically exceptional about this case at all.

We have a winner!


I am glad for this couple that they can work out their infertility issues.

"Why can't they adopt?" I guess for the same reason all those other couples go through IVF...

 

[Planogirl]

I agree that it's his right to do as he wishes. But I wonder about the baby. Could the hormones affect the baby?

What a mix up. Nothing wrong with it IMO but just different.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Nevermind, probably not a good comparison.

 

[Deb in IA]

As an obstetrician described this morning on GMA, it would be crucial for him to stop any exogenous testosterone injections very early in the pregnancy. Otherwise, since the fetus he is carrying is a girl, the child will have virulized genitalia, that would be difficult to correct.

 

[StrollPatrolMom]

but its one thing to supplement hormones because of an imbalance, and its another to opt to take them when you do not need them. Regardless of whether HER (sorry anyone who gets a period is not a man) period came back, testosterone is a funny thing and who knows what the impact is on the unborn baby. Adoption was an option...if there is a doubt or question (and maybe this is the reason some of these doctors didn't want to treat this patient having nothing to do with bias and everything do do with medical safety) this couple should have explored another avenue. They ARE playing with science in this case there I'm not aware of any research on the subject, and that makes this an extremely selfish choice IMO.You can paint it as bias all you want, its not about THEIR choices in life, its about an innocent baby.

 

[smartestnumber5]

Ok, I see your point, and honestly, I don't think there is anything wrong with what you're doing. This person IS a man, he is legally a man. You can't claim to be a man, then want to be a woman so you can have a baby. There should be no flip flopping when it comes to gender. How did this "man" get to be a legal man anyway?
You are your partner are both woman, I'm assuming, so that is completely different. Don't be so sensitive. You and your partner having a baby is completely different from what we are talking about.

But if GF got her license changed to say "M" instead of "F" and had her breasts removed--then her having a baby would be a travesty when now it is completely okay? (Is it supposed to make me feel good that while you look down upon this couple, my family is okay--so long as we abide by the strict guidelines of GF using female pronouns and keeping her breasts? Want to tell me the details of how you had your children and I'll tell you if I approve of those methods?)

I don't see where this person is flip-flopping. He has not changed the M back to an F. He has not asked for people to start calling him a female again. He is not asking to reverse his breast removal surgery. He clearly feels like a man. But he also has a uterus and that uterus is very useful for producing babies, so he is making use of it. He is still legally a man--merely having a child does not imply that he wants to be a woman or that he legally is one.

You seem to be assuming that one can not identify as and feel like a man while also employing a uterus to have a baby. The majority of F-to-M trans men still have uteruses. They still have to deal with the usual female-reproductive issues in their bodies--they still have to go to the gynecologist and get a monthly pap smear. If something goes wrong--uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, etc they still need to have the exact same medical treatment as a non-trans woman does. They are perfectly capable of living as, identifying as, and feeling like a man despite this. Extrapolating from this typical experience of F-to-M trans men, I see absolutely no reason to think that one can't feel like and identify as a man while having a baby.

 

[StrollPatrolMom]

I don't see where this person is flip-flopping. He has not changed the M back to an F. He has not asked for people to start calling him a female again.

Can you just answer which sex it is that has ovaries and a uterus and gives birth?

 

[eh24fan]

But if GF got her license changed to say "M" instead of "F" and had her breasts removed--then her having a baby would be a travesty when now it is completely okay? (Is it supposed to make me feel good that while you look down upon this couple, my family is okay--so long as we abide by the strict guidelines of GF using female pronouns and keeping her breasts? Want to tell me the details of how you had your children and I'll tell you if I approve of those methods?)

I don't see where this person is flip-flopping. He has not changed the M back to an F. He has not asked for people to start calling him a female again. He is not asking to reverse his breast removal surgery. He clearly feels like a man. But he also has a uterus and that uterus is very useful for producing babies, so he is making use of it. He is still legally a man--merely having a child does not imply that he wants to be a woman or that he legally is one.

You seem to be assuming that one can not identify as and feel like a man while also employing a uterus to have a baby. The majority of F-to-M trans men still have uteruses. They still have to deal with the usual female-reproductive issues in their bodies--they still have to go to the gynecologist and get a monthly pap smear. If something goes wrong--uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, etc they still need to have the exact same medical treatment as a non-trans woman does. They are perfectly capable of living as, identifying as, and feeling like a man despite this. Extrapolating from this typical experience of F-to-M trans men, I see absolutely no reason to think that one can't feel like and identify as a man while having a baby.

I actually agree with you here! He still has the parts, what's wrong with using them for what they were intended? It's not as if he (she?? I'm not even sure which pronoun to use to eliminate confusion) is just doing this for fun. He and his wife weren't able to have a baby any other way, so they chose this way. It's no different than a surrogate or fertility treatments IMO and I tend to be a bit conservative.

 

[Laura]

I actually agree with you here! He still has the parts, what's wrong with using them for what they were intended? It's not as if he (she?? I'm not even sure which pronoun to use to eliminate confusion) is just doing this for fun. He and his wife weren't able to have a baby any other way, so they chose this way. It's no different than a surrogate or fertility treatments IMO and I tend to be a bit conservative.

I see it much the same way.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

I see it much the same way.

Me, too.

 

[smartestnumber5]

gee, how about making it what its about, the BABY...does anyone in the medical community know what the effects of "his" having undergone testosterone will be on the baby???

Yes I can see worries about the health of the baby.

But in that way they are no different than millions of other people who make choices that put their children at risk. Does anybody really know what 30 years of oral contraceptives do to a woman's body? Should a woman who has worked in a nuclear power plant for 20 years really be giving birth? Is it safe to be pregnant and be taking anti-depressants? If you are over 40, isn't it selfish to get pregnant given the increased risk to the baby? Not vaccinating your kids (we've all seen the vaccine threads on the DIS! ).

Sure there might be less information about this particular case than some of the other cases I mentioned. So sure, if you want to condemn them for making risky medical decisions I don't have a problem with that. But that really has nothing to do with the gender issue at all. If in 10 years there is a massive study done that shows that having a baby after undergoing sex-change hormones is no more risky than having a baby after 40, then there will be no medical reason for F-to-M trans people to not have babies. I assume, though, that most of the objections on this thread would not go away if it were proven that there is very little medical risk to having a baby after undergoing testosterone therapy.

 

[SandraVB79]

The way I understood the article: he took testosteron/ other "male" hormones. When they decided to become pregnant, he stopped taking those hormones.
IMO, this is not different from a woman taking BC hormones, and then stops taking them to become pregnant.
The male hormones he was taking before will probably be no better or no worse than BC hormones women are taking.