'Pregnant' man stuns medical profession

[PghLybrt]

I don't think we should be told to mind our own business when a "pregnant man" shows up in a publication naked clutching his blossoming tummy. Sorry. It's not an "Ahh, ain't that sweet" moment... If they didn't want the controversy, they wouldn't have asked for it.

You do know what magazine ran it right? Because of that I do not think it would be surrounded by such controversy. This is not the 1st man to have a baby.

To me it is a very sweet moment.

 

[Crankyshank]

My only concern in this situation would be the unknown territory aspect in regards to the testosterone levels affecting the fetal development. I would imagine the couple has gone through an extensive amount of research and consultation with professionals though.

I think it's great that they had this option. I probably wouldn't bat an eye if I saw them. I know several women who dress/look like men in a lesbian relationship that have given birth. I probably would assume the same thing applied in this situation.

 

[LotsOfQuestions]

Oh yes, it is such a burden to mind one's own business.

I think it is wonderful that this couple has found a way to have a child. I don't find it any stranger than couples using surrogates or a child being conceived in a petri dish.

I don't find the testosterone any different than women using progesterone and estrogen for significant lengths of time to stop birth.

However, they, the couple, are making it impossible for others to mind their own business. This is the only problem I have with it. This couple is exploiting their unique way of creating a family, and that I feel is wrong.

In the article:

"The couple, however, refused to give the Post further details, citing deals with American media outlets. “It’s a big deal and we want to be able to tell our story,” the Post reported Mrs Beatie as saying."

the couple won't tell anybody else about the baby unless they have "deals." They are exploiting an innocent child and how she came to be, and that is completely and utterly wrong.

If they just went about their business instead of creating sensational tabloid articles such as "man has baby," I think they would get much more understanding and respect.

But the sheer audacity of exploiting this poor baby before she is born is creating the contempt they say they don't want.

 

[smartestnumber5]

You do know what magazine ran it right? Because of that I do not think it would be surrounded by such controversy. This is not the 1st man to have a baby.

Exactly. The original article was in the Advocate—a magazine for GLBT people. The article focused on the bad treatment the couple was getting from medical professionals, which is a very, very, very common thing for trans people. This newspaper appears to have run the same article almost verbatim and refers numerous times to the original article.

So there is no indication that the couple talked to this newspaper or that they ever intended for their story to reach the mainstream press.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

I don't think we should be told to mind our own business when a "pregnant man" shows up in a publication naked clutching his blossoming tummy. Sorry. It's not an "Ahh, ain't that sweet" moment... If they didn't want the controversy, they wouldn't have asked for it.

How will this pregnancy affect you? It won't. And how did they ask for controversy by starting a family?

 

[ChrizJen]

I think it is wonderful that this couple has found a way to have a child. I don't find it any stranger than couples using surrogates or a child being conceived in a petri dish.

I don't find the testosterone any different than women using progesterone and estrogen for significant lengths of time to stop birth.

However, they, the couple, are making it impossible for others to mind their own business. This is the only problem I have with it. This couple is exploiting their unique way of creating a family, and that I feel is wrong.

In the article:

"The couple, however, refused to give the Post further details, citing deals with American media outlets. “It’s a big deal and we want to be able to tell our story,” the Post reported Mrs Beatie as saying."

the couple won't tell anybody else about the baby unless they have "deals." They are exploiting an innocent child and how she came to be, and that is completely and utterly wrong.

If they just went about their business instead of creating sensational tabloid articles such as "man has baby," I think they would get much more understanding and respect.

But the sheer audacity of exploiting this poor baby before she is born is creating the contempt they say they don't want.

Did you ever stop and think that the "deals" to which the couple refers could be ones that PROTECT the family from undue bad publicity? Could it possibly be that they're selective in who they're willing to talk to because they know that some media outlets would make a compete mockery of their situation?

 

[Beth76]

In most states one can change one's legal sex after having top surgery (which you usually can't have until you've been diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder by a psychiatrist and had a certain amount of counseling) and taking hormones. Many, many trans people do not get bottom surgery

But that doesn't make sense. All people have breasts--men and women. Some men even have bigger breasts than women. So I don't see how removing breast tissue and taking hormones makes you a man. Especially since they still have working female parts. So could a lesbian with flat chest and a prescription for male hormones (that's not actually taken) be allowed to "legally" say she's a man and get married to her partner? Again I ask why something like this would be allowed but not standard gay marriage.

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

Well I just don't see how this person was ever a man.


BTW, in case it's not clear, I have no problem with this person having a baby. I would have concerns about the affect of the hormones on the baby, but hope that the doctors gave this person the "all clear".

My problem is more off topic in that people can just say "I don't want to be a woman anymore" and take hormones, but still be a woman, but legally a man.

 

[Aisling]

I just saw a man and a wife who want to have their own child,

I don't really have an opinion either way, but I wonder if the man-who-sexchanged-to-be-a-woman would be offended by being called a "man". I've seen programs on TV where the person feels very strongly about not being called their previous gender. So out of respect to the pregnant person, it's a woman and wife who want to have their own child, right?

 

[Charade]

Um I don't recall ever saying others couldn't have an opinion. I just said it makes me mad, not that they couldn't have their opinions. Now who's projecting?

You're right. I apologize. You didn't say that. You said it made you mad that other people thought it was wrong.

 

[PghLybrt]

Exactly. The original article was in the Advocate—a magazine for GLBT people. The article focused on the bad treatment the couple was getting from medical professionals, which is a very, very, very common thing for trans people. This newspaper appears to have run the same article almost verbatim and refers numerous times to the original article.

So there is no indication that the couple talked to this newspaper or that they ever intended for their story to reach the mainstream press.

Seriously! I in no way blame them for not wanting to talk unless they have a deal in place. A deal might not mean monetary compensation but a deal could include parameters of what can and cannot be asked.

It is a shame that it took 9 doctors to agree to treat him. The biggest shame is that it is not unusual for doctors to turn away transgender patients.

 

[StrollPatrolMom]

The way we have determined it, it would be a woman. However, why should it be this easy? Things and concepts change, evolve...

Not this. Being a woman is not a "concept". When you are born with female parts and female genes, you are female.


A dog is a dog, doesn't mean its a cat if you start going around calling it a cat.

I sympathize some people may have a mental issue relating to confusion over their gender, but if its a true clinical issue I do not see why you wouldn't elect for the surgery to complete your transistion....if you give birth to a child you are their mother.

 

[StrollPatrolMom]

Oh yes, it is such a burden to mind one's own business.

well, when you're cutting back room deals with our media to sell your story to the highest bidder it makes it a little less likely people will be able to mind their own business.

 

[SandraVB79]

Not this. Being a woman is not a "concept". When you are born with female parts and female genes, you are female.


A dog is a dog, doesn't mean its a cat if you start going around calling it a cat.

I sympathize some people may have a mental issue relating to confusion over their gender, but if its a true clinical issue I do not see why you wouldn't elect for the surgery to complete your transistion....if you give birth to a child you are their mother.

Because "such" surgery is very expensive and not as easy to do.

 

[Nikel]

Because "such" surgery is very expensive and not as easy to do.

Exactly. Surgery is expensive and risky.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

well, when you're cutting back room deals with our media to sell your story to the highest bidder it makes it a little less likely people will be able to mind their own business.

You don't know their motiviation. It could be that they are protecting the way their experience will be portrayed.

My statement, however, was made in the GLOBAL sense of how is it a burden to mind one's own business? How does one pregnancy you aren't involved in affect you? How does one family you don't even know affect you?

 

[smartestnumber5]

But that doesn't make sense. All people have breasts--men and women. Some men even have bigger breasts than women. So I don't see how removing breast tissue and taking hormones makes you a man. Especially since they still have working female parts. So could a lesbian with flat chest and a prescription for male hormones (that's not actually taken) be allowed to "legally" say she's a man and get married to her partner? Again I ask why something like this would be allowed but not standard gay marriage.

Well I'm right there with you about wondering why gay marriage isn't legal! And I agree, it seems especially inconsistent when you consider that this couple is legally married.

But it's not like doing things the opposite way would make it less ridiculous. Suppose to count as a "man" legally you have to have XY chromosomes. (Well let's ignore the HUGE problem this would cause for intersex people.) Well then suppose at age 19 John decides to become Mary. After a few years Mary has bottom and top surgery and hormone therapy so everyone other than her family has always known her as a woman and doesn't realize she ever had a different body. After living this way for 20 years, Mary and Sue fall in love. They identify as lesbians. People treat them like lesbians. But Mary has XY chromosomes, so despite her living like a woman for 20 years, she still legally counts as a man. Hence Mary and Sue are legally allowed to get married. Wouldn't that be a similarly ridiculous situation (assuming gay marriage were still illegal)?

Well I just don't see how this person was ever a man.


BTW, in case it's not clear, I have no problem with this person having a baby. I would have concerns about the affect of the hormones on the baby, but hope that the doctors gave this person the "all clear".

My problem is more off topic in that people can just say "I don't want to be a woman anymore" and take hormones, but still be a woman, but legally a man.

Well what is the alternative? Should a person with male secondary sex characteristics, who has had breast tissue removed, and who identifies and lives as a man be legally considered a woman? Should he be required to use the women's bathroom at work? If he goes to college, should be be placed in a dorm room with a female roommate? Should his license say female and, if so, how are we going to protect him from harassment and possibly sexual assault when a cop sees a discrepency in the person's appearance and the sex listed on the license?

What do we do about intersex people? On what basis do we determine their legal sex--chromosomes, genitalia, reproductive organs? Are we going to tell AIS women who look sterotypically like women and have lived their entire lives feeling like women that, "Oh we just changed the law and now we have to put an "M" on your license and you have to use the men's bathroom" because you have XY chromosomes?

There just isn't any good way to determine legal sex that doesn't seem strange from some point of view or other. Personally I don't see why they don't just do away with it altogether.

 

[LotsOfQuestions]

Did you ever stop and think that the "deals" to which the couple refers could be ones that PROTECT the family from undue bad publicity? Could it possibly be that they're selective in who they're willing to talk to because they know that some media outlets would make a compete mockery of their situation?

No. IF they were so concerned about good press and getting the word out, they wouldn't have refused to talk to The Telegraph because they had "deals" with American papers.

That clearly says they have exclusive monetary deals with American papers. If it were deals to protect their situation, they they would be free to also make a deal with the Telegraph to protect their situation.

But because they cannot speak to another paper because of other "deals", it is clearly monetary deals they have. Publications don't get exclusives without $$$$ involved.

And my contempt of this couple has nothing to do with who they are gendered or sexually. As I mentioned, I think it is great that they were able to find a way to have what seems to be a much wanted and much loved baby.

But, just as I feel contempt for stars that pimp their babies pictures out for $$$, this couple seems to making "deals" for much the same reason - the almighty dollar. I find it abhorrent for any couple, no matter the circumstances of their relationships who pimp infants and or fetuses for money.

.

 

[smartestnumber5]

I don't really have an opinion either way, but I wonder if the man-who-sexchanged-to-be-a-woman would be offended by being called a "man". I've seen programs on TV where the person feels very strongly about not being called their previous gender. So out of respect to the pregnant person, it's a woman and wife who want to have their own child, right?

No it's the other way around--the transition was female to male.

The pregnant person was born with typically female parts. He then went through hormone surgery and top surgery to remove breast tissue. He has just stopped the hormones temporarily to go through with the pregnancy and then, I assume, will continue with the hormones.

But you are right about sensitivity to pro-nouns

 

[smartestnumber5]

Not this. Being a woman is not a "concept". When you are born with female parts and female genes, you are female.
.

Again, I ask what about intersex people? I gave two cases a few pages ago.

What sex are they if it is so simple?

 

[Nikel]

No. IF they were so concerned about good press and getting the word out, they wouldn't have refused to talk to The Telegraph because they had "deals" with American papers. That says they have exclusive monetary deals with American papers. If it were deals to protect their situation, they they would be free to make a deal with the Telegraph to protect their situation.

It is clearly monetary deals they have and that is why they are not able to speak to other papers than the ones they have made deals with.

And my contempt of this couple has nothing to do with who they are gendered or sexually. As I mentioned, I think it is great that they were able to find a way to have what seems to be a much wanted and much loved baby.

But, just as I feel contempt for stars that pimp their babies pictures out for $$$, this couple seems to making "deals" for much the same reason - the almighty dollar. I find it abhorrent for any couple, no matter the circumstances of their relationships who pimp infants and or fetuses for money.

.

Perhaps their "deals" are with GLBT publications, not just mainstream press. Would you still consider that pimping their fetus? ANd like tohers have already mentioned the "deals" may not be monetary in nature, but more about privacy.