Men don't have babies. Period. Yet in covering the ‘pregnant man' story this morning both the "Early Show" and "Good Morning America" neither outlet dealt with this fact. Rather, both were completely focused on the fact that Thomas Beatie was speaking publicly for the first time and would be shown on today's "Oprah" show. Both outlets also reported that Beatie's story would appear in this week's issue of People, due on news stands tomorrow.
So really, the media were reporting on the media reporting on the pregnant man. Which really amounts to a public relations boon for Oprah, People and of course the Beaties.
On the Early Show the entire interview was with Patrick Rogers, the senior editor of People. GMA also interviewed Rogers, but included a psychologist as well. In both stories the focus was on the "unusual" aspects of the story. Take a look at the way the stories opened.
"Good Morning America's" Deborah Roberts said:
This one has people everywhere scratching their heads. Thomas Beatie can bench press 255 pounds. He's a black belt in karate and he's having a baby. That' right, a man giving birth. He and his wife are actually going public with their unusual circumstances for the first time today.
"Early Show's" Maggie Rodriquez said:
Thomas Beatty and his wife Nancy are expecting their first child. But there's a twist and it's a big one. He is having the baby. People Magazine did a photo shoot with the couple and has given us this exclusive behind the scenes video of this very unusual story. We're joined now by People Magazine Senior Editor Patrick Rogers. Good morning to you Patrick.
ROGERS: Good morning.
RODRIGUEZ: This is unbelievable, he looks like a man, he's legally a man, but he has female reproductive organs, right?
ROGERS: Yes, this is a story that takes a little getting used to. But Thomas Beatty started his life as a woman, and transitioned, became legally a man. He still has his female reproductive organs, and now he's pregnant -- six months pregnant.
He still has his female reproductive organs? Hello?
Note to Rogers, Rodriguez, Roberts and all of the other reporters covering the story: Men do not have babies. They do not have female reproductive organs.
The shallow reporting on this disturbing story is astounding. The MRC's Culture and Media Institute has issued a press release asking, "Why are the media advancing transgenderism and the lie of a pregnant ‘man'?
CMI's Director Robert Knight had this to say:
"She can have a baby; she's not a man. The media are conducting a charade in which a pregnant woman who had her breasts removed and takes hormones is a ‘man' having a baby. The circus will continue when Oprah gives this poor, disturbed woman a huge platform. In a clip from the "Oprah" show on People magazine's Web site, Oprah asks, ‘Do you think our country, this world is ready?'
"We'd say the media are making them ready. Oprah's clip also tells us her cameras have ‘captured it all.' I doubt they have. Unless Oprah decides to go in a completely different direction from other coverage, she'll be feeding this bizarre fantasy," Knight said. "Some outlets, like today's broadcast of "Good Morning America," have brought in medical professionals to talk about potential harm to the unborn child. But none has dealt honestly with the central issue of transgenderism. They refer to Thomas Beatie as ‘he' in the face of unarguable evidence: a pregnancy."
This is a provocative story that deserves serious reporting. It seems the media want to play off the sensationalism of a ‘pregnant man' but not deal with the manifold ramifications. No coverage of this story has used medical experts the caliber of Dr. Paul McHugh from Johns Hopkins University, a Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry.
McHugh, in a 2004 article, "Surgical Sex," explained why he changed his mind about transgender surgery.
"I concluded that Hopkins was fundamentally cooperating with a mental illness. We psychiatrists, I thought, would do better to concentrate on trying to fix their minds and not their genitalia.... we psychiatrists have been distracted from studying the causes and natures of their mental misdirections by preparing them for surgery and for a life in the other sex. We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it."
The opinion and expertise of Dr. McHugh and other like-minded credentialed medical professionals is tremendously important in this story. So far the MSM have only given lip service to the "unusual" circumstances of this story but have failed to do any real serious reporting. They're treating it in tabloid fashion and in so doing advance a lie.
Here's the truth: Men don't have babies. Period.
Comments Policy
Why is this news?
April 3, 2008 - 16:20 ET by LionKingIsn't this stuff they have at the circus freak show? Bearded lady, 5-legged dog, 2-headed snake, Siamese twins still together...pregnant-failed-transgender recipient.
Maybe instead of being so
April 3, 2008 - 16:32 ET by BinxlyMaybe instead of being so oblivious to the case that brain functionality and gender is decided *earlier* and can become incongrous (sp) with the biological sex of an individual. That should put to rest anyone willing to judge this man because he was born a woman. So men don't have babies? Fair enough, and I can accept that some closed minded people see change or difference as inheirently 'evil.'
Now, if the author did their research, they'd understand this man is pretty upset at the effects going through with this will be (off of testosterone, gaining back his genetically female traits as estrogen levels rise and testosterone decreases due to lack of drug administration of the T) and he does not take this choice lightly.
Truth is, his wife *cannot* bear children. This gentleman was already robbed of a 'normal' life due to a biological 'screw up' and now people want to fault this family for wanting a biological child of their own. The gentleman CONSTANTLY states in publication interviews that he is NOT trying to stir the pot or change the functionality of pregnancy, and that he doesn't even WANT to do this except that it is their only option to birth a biological child. So don't go off on this tin foil hat wearing rant about how this somehow degrades society, people like this author and other judgemental people who have no sense of gratitude that they were born correct and able to have a 'normal' life and biological children of their own that degrade society.
Do I like the idea of a man birthing a child? Not really, its odd to me, admittedly, but what is so wrong in this case? It is a matter of it is the ONLY way to have their own child. How would you feel if you would not be allowed to have your own child? Ever hear of the awful preachers and even secular politicians in the South in the late 60's and into the 70's who openly decried the 'evils' of interracial children?
The fact is people, humans evolve. That is not a knock on God, I am a firm believer, but I also believe humanity is not a stagnant entity and all this fuss created by this author and others like her is NOT about morals, its about them kicking and screaming because some people live different lives than the ones they lead. It's not that far out of belief that not only can this family raise the child lovingly and responsibly, but that the child will also turn out just as well off as any child from a conventional relationship.
I'm sorry, but your motive for this article is quite transparent and it is people like this author who make me sad because they give my party the image of intolerant people unwilling to let go of traditions, even when the 'alternative' lifestyles are equally 'moral.'
Stick to writing about politics, these kind of stories just paint you as a bigot.
You know, I can buy into
April 3, 2008 - 16:52 ET by Gary P JacksonYou know, I can buy into the "biological screw up" angle of your argument. It's very possible for many genetic signals to get mixed up, such as a woman being born thinking they should be a man, or vice versa.
But the fact remains, this person is NOT a man. Men cannot have babies. It's completely impossible. Now though modern medicine, we can add parts, or remove them. But a part change and some drugs do not a sex make.
Now when someone, who is born a man, with all of the relevant equipment "factory installed", becomes pregnant, then you'll have something! Until then, you have a woman who is pregnant. That's not a story, as females of all species become pregnant daily.
The only reason the liberal press is running with this deal is because it further breaks down traditional values. Nothing more, nothing less.
OK, I'll bite.
April 3, 2008 - 17:13 ET by SickofLibsWHOA...
If I stripped naked, got down on all fours, took off into the woods and from that point on ate nothing but small mammals that would NOT MAKE ME A WOLF, now would it?
This is not a 'gentleman' as you refer to the person, this is a biological woman. This is not a bigot's view, it is an irrefutable scientific fact.
And too be totally truthful, this 'biological child of their own' is only HALF theirs, unless the wife did the insemination. Which would of course raise this non-story to the next level.
The wife did inseminate her
April 3, 2008 - 17:18 ET by LionKingThe wife did. She got semen from a bank and well... the rest is a modern-day miracle.
Yep you may be a firm
April 3, 2008 - 17:14 ET by Dan The Man 2Yep you may be a firm believer but not in God and Jesus of teh Bible so don't even go there. This person having the baby is a female. You can take your beliefs and go into a corner where you cause no problems.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Unbelievable.
April 3, 2008 - 17:24 ET by JohnLockeBinxly, I find it hard to believe that you identify as a Republican (if that is what you meant in your closing statements) and yet you turn around and make this terribly flawed argument. Tell me: where in the U.S. Constitution are couples guaranteed the right to have biological children? Do you have any idea how many infertile couples there are in this country? What makes this couple so special? How can anyone in their right mind think that "it's their only way to have a biological child" actually validates a transgender pregnancy? Furthermore, how does Fyfe's writing in any way give the impression of bigotry (other than, of course, in the mind of a hypersensitive liberal)? She's not asking for the media to label it as "unnatural" or "socially corruptive." She's merely pointing out that the media only hypes and focuses on the sensational nature of the story rather than on the ethical and societal implications. Frankly, your comparison of a transgender pregnancy to an interracial pregnancy is infinitely more offensive than anything Fyfe wrote.
"I think government is a necessary evil, like, say, motion picture agents." -John Wayne
There's that liberal name calling again!!!
April 3, 2008 - 18:09 ET by Wilbur747It's not the external appearance or massive plastic surgery that determines who is male or female, but a very basic biological fact...the chromosome. The X & Y chromosome determine what sex we are, not Dr. Adad**ktome.
http://biology.about.com/library/weekly/aa091103a.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-determination_system
We're not bigots, we just know basic science and remember our biology classes.
This is proof that there's no truth to the old adage that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, then it must be a duck
Lastly, if you can't see the political ramifications in this story, then you, as all liberals are, truly blind.
Chromosomes do most of the
April 4, 2008 - 00:20 ET by cleverpigChromosomes do most of the work, but there are lots of complications that your high school biology class did not teach you about.
Did you know there are people who's internal and external genitalia are different? Which gender are you going to decide they should be? There are people who end up with three sex chromosomes. There are all sorts of complications that can arise before you even get into the issue of brain organization and behavioral sex.
The only way to navigate this without seriously screwing over someone in the equation is to listen to what people say they feel like-- a man or a woman. Or heck, neither. If this guy says he's a man then he's a man. You call him a man out of respect for his right to his own identity, and when he gets pregnant you don't stop calling him a man simply because he's crossed some line that's more about your comfort level than it is about his biology.
So you also claim to be a
April 4, 2008 - 10:10 ET by Dan The Man 2So you also claim to be a pig, are you?
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Yes, and medical science
April 4, 2008 - 10:27 ET by NL207Yes, and medical science describes every one of these conditions as a "disease", just as it refers to Trisomy, Spinabifida and Hemophilia, all geneticallly driven, as diseases. They all represent abnormal human physiology.
"2. An alteration in the state of the body or of some of its organs, interrupting or disturbing the performance of the vital functions, and causing or threatening pain and weakness; malady; affection; illness; sickness; disorder; applied figuratively to the mind, to the moral character and habits, to institutions, the state, etc. "
Or Heck, Not even Human
April 4, 2008 - 10:41 ET by CobraMan"If this guy says he's a man then he's a man."
If this "guy" says she's a man but she's actually a woman, then she's delusional. Anyone who promotes that delusion by accepting her altered definition of manhood is not helping her recognize and threat that delusional state. You're not helping her by agreeing she‘s a man; you're actually hurting her for the truth is she‘s a woman and she needs to accept her natural state of being.
If you believe that we are only what we call ourselves, then what if someone calls himself a Panda bear? Suppose he even goes as far as using plastic surgery to make himself LOOK like a Panda bear? Do we just accept this and say: "Hay look, he really IS a Panda Bear!" No, that's a delusion for no matter what the man (or the rest of us) says or does, he's NOT a Panda Bear.
Once we allow people to make their own definitions of what constitutes gender, then the very concept of definition itself is corrupted and becomes useless. Why try to define something if that definition is malleable and changes from person to person and situation to situation? Do you really want 300 million definitions of things like gender?
We need a standard definition of things like gender to communicate effectively, otherwise confusion will occur and we'll be living in the Biblical city of Babble. I don't know about you, but I sure don't want to live in a world where the definitions keep changing and no one knows what others mean when they speak. That's called chaos and we already have too much of that in human society.
I'm not sure what to say
April 4, 2008 - 17:43 ET by cleverpigI'm not sure what to say here except that medical science disagrees with you.
Hormones make the brain male or female. It is possible to disrupt those hormones and cause problems with gender identity. There are no hormones that, by their presence or absence, make you feel like a panda. Your example is patently ludicrous and demeaning.
CP,
April 4, 2008 - 18:04 ET by tracheostomyLook, I'm more than willing to accept all of this. I'm not threatened by it.
I only have problems with quotes like this. . .
CP: The only way to navigate this without seriously screwing over someone in the equation is to listen to what people say they feel like-- a man or a woman. Or heck, neither. If this guy says he's a man then he's a man. You call him a man out of respect for his right to his own identity, and when he gets pregnant you don't stop calling him a man simply because he's crossed some line that's more about your comfort level than it is about his biology.
Super ambiguous. And ambiguity fuels mistrust and suspicion. You're not fixing things at all Clever; you're only making it worse.
I'm asking you or Zoe or Binxly to settle my fears, which include the following:
1. How can another person trust how the intersexed individual feels at any given time? This obviously needs to be monitored more closely than Thomas was. Thomas made a clear clinical "break" here, and should not even have the support of the intersex community in this case.
2. "Or heck, neither." <--- ???
3. If Thomas gets pregnant, then he's taking on a 99% exclusively female role, is he not? Why are you so liberal about this individual's inconsistency to self?
If these decisions must be carefully made with professional help as Zoe advocates, it appears that Thomas is turning on a dime with shoddy advice at best. Where are the boundaries? And if there aren't any, then there is a movement out there that is attempting to water-down gender (and identity) itself.
4. Are you saying decisions like Thomas' can be made on a whim? Where does his "comfort level" become his biology and how come the rest of us aren't held to the same standard?
Let's see how far down this rabbit hole goes. . .
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
That's a load of crap
April 4, 2008 - 18:25 ET by CobraManThat's a load of crap and medical science would agree.
Every procedure this woman as undergone is INTENTIONAL interference with natural biology. This isn't a case of an extra chromosome, or a case of a hermaphrodite. This is a case of a woman who hates her own body and is trying to become something she is not. She's delusional and people are allowing her to continue believing her delusions by supporting her and calling her a Man.
Tell me, would you support someone who thought they were a Jesus or Napoleon? There's no difference between someone who thinks they're Napoleon and a woman that thinks they're a man. Delusions are delusions. It's a treatable mental disorder. Stop supporting a mental disorder.
Hormones make the brain male or female.
April 4, 2008 - 19:03 ET by CobraMan"Hormones make the brain male or female."
Talk about a ludicrous argument! How can the same hormones that created the female sexual organs also create a male brain? Since all biological systems are regulated and controlled by hormones, a hormonal induced change in one organ, like the brain, would also occur in other organs as well, like the sexual organs. Since this woman is PREGNANT, it would show that all her hormones are female and not male and that she has a female brain as well as female sexual organs.
Then there’s the fact that she’s taking male hormone supplements. Why else would she taking male hormone supplements if male hormone are ALREADY present as per your argument? She wouldn’t need to take supplements if male hormones were controlling her sexual identity since birth. Since she was taking male hormones prior to becoming pregnant but wasn‘t tanking them since birth, that pretty well rules out hormones as a cause of her sexual identity. Since we can rule out hormones causing her confusion as to her sexual identity, that only leave mental disorders as a cause of her sexually mis-identity. That reveals her delusions of being a man. Let’s recognize and treat her disorder for what it is, delusional behavior.
Because the timing of
April 4, 2008 - 21:03 ET by cleverpigBecause the timing of hormonal effects on different parts of the body aren't identical, and so anything that disrupts the process could conceivably cause a disconnect.
There are still tons of things we don't understand about how this all works, but we know that there are sensitive periods during development when different tissues respond to sex hormones. We've identified some of the ways that this can go wrong, but generally the problems we know about are the ones that cause morphological changes. Behavioral changes are just much harder to measure and analyze.
For instance, there is a disease called congenital adrenal hyperplasia (I don't have a link, going off memory on this one, but I'm sure you can look it up). In it the female's adrenal glands produce adrogens (that's right, they don't just come from testes) which masculinize the external genitalia. You end up with someone who is externally male and internally female. Do you think they have a male or a female brain? The fact is we don't know. Similar problems that don't affect morphology could be happening that we just haven't detected yet.
Your second argument reflects a basic misunderstanding about hormones and how they affect us. Somewhere in this thread I quoted an abstract from an important endocrinology paper that explains this. Hormones have what we term an "organizational effect" early in development, then a separate "activational effect" when reaching sexual maturity. The organizational effects prime the body to respond to later changes. If you don't get the right hormones early in development, then you get cases where individuals (and this is based on rats, for ethical reasons you obviously can't perform these experiments with people) are primed to respond to the hormones of the opposite gender, or are unable to respond to the hormones of their own gender. Keep in mind that this can happen because both male and female hormones are present in both sexes, just in varying amounts and with varying effects because of the organizational aspect.
Does that make sense? I'm sure some people would object to the characterization of this as a "disorder," but even if you think it is, isn't it up to the person living with it to decide how to fix it? If the brain and the body don't match, do we really get to say that the body takes precedent because it is the part the rest of us can see? Hormonal effects on the brain are just as real as effects on your Wolffian ducts and your gonads, who are you to say that the disconnect has to be resolved a certain way? More to the point, we don't know how to change the architecture of the brain after it has developed, so currently changing the body may be the only option.
You've come full circle
April 4, 2008 - 21:53 ET by CobraManYou've come full circle, as I knew you would.
First you claim that hormones determine gender identity and not individual perception. You make an argument that hormones create a male or female brain and that it‘s these hormones that determine gender identity. You also claim that it is possible for a human to have both a male brain and a female body even though that would be a contradiction.
When I point out that hormones affect more than just one organ at a time and that if hormones effect one organ they must also effect others as well, you claim that even though the hormones control sexuality, it really depends on when the hormones are released into the body.
You omit the fact that hormones, no matter when they are released, travel throughout the entire body and would effect all the related organs simultaneously. Once again, if hormones create a male brain, they would also create male sexual organs no matter when those hormones are released.
Apparently you realize that people may catch that omission because now you claim that, despite all your pervious arguments, it really is personal perception that should be used to determine gender, not biology or science.
You've come full circle and are now arguing for the very basis of gender identity you spent so much time and energy arguing against. Your entire premise has collapsed in on itself and you‘re back to where you started. How can you explain that, if your theories are correct and gender identity is based on hormone created brain gender?
Tell the truth, you really don’t have any idea what determines gender identity and, since you don’t know, you feel that anyone can use whatever methods they prefer to determin their own gender. Well, that’s not very scientific now, is it? As a matter of fact, that’s making definitions based solely on personal feelings and not on physical descriptions. That’s a terrible way to define anything. No wonder why you’re confused!
Look, the endocrinology I'm
April 5, 2008 - 03:46 ET by cleverpigLook, the endocrinology I'm citing here is correct. Hormones only affect tissues that have active receptors for them, receptors which aren't blocked by agonists. I don't know which mechanism produces the sensitive period for tissues during fetal development, but it is simply not true that hormones circulating in the body affect all tissues equally. Not. True. If you think I'm making this up, go find out for yourself. Check out a book on neuroendocrinology. I get that "go read a book" is not a well respected tactic, but I provided a link earlier to Trach that you obviously haven't bothered to read, so I'm not going to waste my time doing more research for you.
There is nothing circular or contradictory about my argument. The reason I say we have to rely on individual perception is because that is often all we have to measure what is happening in the brain. Maybe, with all the good uses that fMRI is being put to these days, that will change. Currently, we can't test brain function because we don't understand it well. You are correct in your assertion that I don't know everything about how sex or gender are determined. I do know the basics, however, which is something you might want to brush up on if you want to continue this argument.
Was wondering why Binx didn't pop in early on the previous one.
April 3, 2008 - 18:20 ET by tracheostomyB: Maybe instead of being so oblivious to the case that brain functionality and gender is decided *earlier* and can become incongrous (sp) with the biological sex of an individual.
Sorry, Binx. Genetics has you on this one. I'm still waiting on your proof for this as well.
B: Now, if the author did their research, they'd understand this man is pretty upset at the effects going through with this will be (off of testosterone, gaining back his genetically female traits as estrogen levels rise and testosterone decreases due to lack of drug administration of the T) and he does not take this choice lightly.
You mean like the choice to become a man in the first place? It's a proven fact that Thomas can't or won't follow through on big decisions.
I cite the inconsistency of the initial sex-change itself as evidence of a through-and-through shallowness of being and a total identity disorder (not simply one of gender).
B: So don't go off on this tin foil hat wearing rant about how this somehow degrades society, people like this author and other judgemental people who have no sense of gratitude that they were born correct and able to have a 'normal' life and biological children of their own that degrade society.
Your accusation is misguided. The "societal degradation" comes from an individual's own identity disorder. It is in fact being remade in such a continuously radical manner, that everyone involved gets to ride the roller-coaster (even us).
You're contradicting yourself in your own posts Binx. Why would someone go to such great lengths and biological risk to put their new "self" on hold for the sake of having a very risky pregnancy? Love? Commitment? Doesn't "To thine ownself be true" have any place in this matter? You cannot truly love another until you love or at the very least accept yourself, right? Thomas has this backwards. He thinks he can put up the cosmetic trappings, wife, child, white picket fence, and then deal with the rest sometime later.
B: Do I like the idea of a man birthing a child?
Don't forget that this will never-ever be a complete man. Even if we could change the gender to the chromosomal level (which we can't), this is still a man in name only. You can throw all the science and genitoplasty at it that you want, but Thomas never went through the process of becoming a whole man and never will.
B: Not really, its odd to me, admittedly, but what is so wrong in this case?
Self-honesty and self-consistency for one. Thomas should have weighed the odds to begin with when she made the decision to alter her own physiology. He/she probably didn't have any 5-10 year plan in mind and now he's changing it. You can flip-flop a lot of things in life, but the real tragedy is when you flip-flop on yourself.
B: It is a matter of it is the ONLY way to have their own child. How would you feel if you would not be allowed to have your own child?
Hence the flip-flop. There was no forethought to this issue at the outset, and now Thomas is reversing his own commitment to "himself." Thus, Thomas betrays herself/himself for the sake of being a woman again for "just a little bit longer." This is the most extreme example of lying to yourself that I have ever seen. Not only a tragedy, but a total crime to self as well.
B: Ever hear of the awful preachers and even secular politicians in the South in the late 60's and into the 70's who openly decried the 'evils' of interracial children?
There's the race card again. In the past you have argued that your own self-identity goes further than skin-deep, then all of a sudden you up and play the race card over and over.
Please be consistent with yourself before getting on your soap-box. This is the one thing I absolutely cannot tolerate about you. . .or Thomas for that matter.
B: The fact is people, humans evolve.
I would just love to hear more about your take on this. So then the scalpel and the hormones is just our little way of helping evolution along? That little comment just gave it all away there Binx.
B: F*** you. Seriously. I'm done with Newsbusters. This shows many here are just the worst of the worst. Continue ignoring REAL credible science and stick to the people who tell you what you want to hear.
Still waiting on that real credible science.
B: I know this much, GOD would be disapointed in all of you who pass judgement like this.
Which kind of judgement? There's two you know. One we're encouraged to use, and the other that's forbidden. I'd hate for you to leave this one hanging in ambiguity (like you have a habit of doing).
B: Oh and for the record, The general scientific community disagrees with your link, if it was such a concern, sexual reassignment surgery would not be as accessable as it is. Oh, and before the author comes back on her high horse with 'horror stories' of those who regret sexual reassignment surgery, compare that number with the GINOURMOUS number of procedures done each year. You'd be lucky to find even a *miniscule* percentage of that number regret their decision.
Still waiting on that credible data thyar. . .
B: To all who I have had good debate and conversation with, TM, Trach, Shawn, Sarc, Bigtimer, Freestinker, and any I may have left out, up until today I have greatly enjoyed our discourse. I wish you all well and hope nothing but the best for you all.
I'm sorry Binx. This issue cannot remain an endless dialogue indefinitely. At some point a decision has to be made and genuine lines are crossed. Thomas did that for all of us nicely. We can step out of the theoretical and point to a real case now.
Your side lost huge this time Binx. Maybe you should re-think your position. Maybe you should brush up on your Shakespeare. >;)
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Genes do not determine
April 4, 2008 - 00:33 ET by cleverpigGenes do not determine morphological sex. Do some reading on the differences between organizing and activating effects of reproductive hormones.
Here we go again. . .
April 4, 2008 - 16:52 ET by tracheostomyNow that's definition of arrogance right there, the "read a book" defense.
- Can't (or won't) even give me an Amazon link.
- Can't (or won't) tell me when the Y chromosome is added to the mix.
- My second-string links say otherwise.
And you're supposed to be a high school biology teacher, am I right?
There goes our future. . .
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Oh for goodness sake, I
April 4, 2008 - 18:01 ET by cleverpigOh for goodness sake, I take terms I hear here and google them for myself all the time. I read about the hormonal basis for sex differentiation in many different places and in many different classes. If you aren't capable of finding information for yourself I'll try and remember where some of my knowledge came from. Incidentally, it is important for our biology teachers to make sure that they do not always spoon feed information to their students, but instead teach them how to find and evaluate scientific information for themselves. And I taught college, not high school.
Read this for a quick outline on how sex is determined in humans:
www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/...
It's a lecture from UCSD. If you want the nitty gritty, look up a 1975 article by Frank Beach in Psychoneuroendocrinology "Hormonal Modification of Sexually Dimorphic Behavior." He was the first one to figure this stuff out. Here's the abstract of that seminal paper:
"Female animals exposed to stimulation by testosterone in utero
or very soon after birth may exhibit changes in adult mating behavior
which are indicative of two independent types of modification. One is defeminization, and another quite different one is masculinization.
The behavioral modifications are believed to represent changes in
separate neural mechanisms, either of which can be altered without
changing the other. The implication is, of course, that the CNS is
originally bisexual with respect to its behavioral potential. 2.
Independent changes which can be produced in males by eliminating the
effects of endogenous testosterone during early development are demasculinization and/or defeminization.
Here again, separate neural mechanisms are postulated. 3. In rodents
and carnivores there are at least two types of behavior which are
normally dimorphic in adulthood and are subject to modification by
manipulation of androgenic stimulation during very early development.
One type, represented by mating behavior, depends heavily upon
concurrent hormonal stimulation in adulthood during the time it is
being manifested. The other, represented by urination behavior in
female dogs, is hormonally modifiable in utero but independent
of gonadal hormones in adulthood. Female dogs genitally masculinized by
testosterone pre- and neonatally exhibit male mounting responses as
adults but only if they are injected with testosterone propionate
before and during the time of testing. The same females display the
male urination pattern as adults, but this behavior occurs without any
concurrent androgenic stimulation and is in fact unaffected by
testosterone injections. It would appear that certain sex differences
in behavior which normally appear at the time of puberty are dependent
upon both prenatal and pubertal hormonal action, whereas other
differences may depend only upon hormonal action during development and
emerge at the normal age of puberty without any additional endocrine
facilitation."
Is that specific enough for you?
You're forgetting something CP. . .
April 4, 2008 - 18:20 ET by tracheostomyCP: Oh for goodness sake, I take terms I hear here and google them for myself all the time.
The terms themselves can be politicized and ambiguous from right to left, no? I'm sure we can agree on that. I simply don't want to walk into that.
CP: I read about the hormonal basis for sex differentiation in many different places and in many different classes. If you aren't capable of finding information for yourself I'll try and remember where some of my knowledge came from.
You're not an authority. Please stop acting like one. I have every right to ask you to cite your sources.
CP: Is that specific enough for you?
Thanks! That's all I ask from anyone else. Now can we determine not only where this begins, but where the final authority is? If hormones influence behavior, why then will the brain overrule this and tell an individual they're the opposite?
Why hasn't this final determinant been classified? How is this not a circular argument?
(a.) Chromosomes --> (b.) hormones --> (c.) intersex infant --> (d.) frustrated intersex adult ----> (e.) [choice/non-choice???] --> (f.) "therapeutic" intersex adult.
What the hell is "e."????
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
I'm not sure what you're
April 4, 2008 - 21:13 ET by cleverpigI'm not sure what you're looking for on e-- why do some people choose to alter themselves and some don't? There's no way I can answer that! But you could ask the same question about any issue phsychological or biological that people live with.
As for final authority, why can't it be the individual? There is so much we don't understand about how the brain works, we don't have a test for gender dysphoria and I doubt we ever will. In any case, finding differences in the brains or finger length ratios of heterosexual and homosexual people still hasn't convinced many people that orientation isn't always just a choice. Even if we found a test and could prove that certain people were "meant" to be a different gender than their external sex, there'd still be bigots who claimed it was all a whim or a deliberate attempt to destroy civilization as we know it. As far as I'm concerned it is the responsibility of the rest of us to accept people for who they feel they are.
Ah-HA!!!
April 4, 2008 - 22:35 ET by tracheostomyCP: I'm not sure what you're looking for on e-- why do some people choose to alter themselves and some don't? There's no way I can answer that!
But you certainly tried to, didn't you?
CP: But you could ask the same question about any issue phsychological or biological that people live with.
Oh, I see you darting for your escape hatch. We're attempting to find empirical data for inner gender-bias/sexual motives and it's not as settled as you're trying to assert after all.
If the "why" is brain chemistry, then why doesn't the anatomy necessarily follow? There's a clue there somewhere.
What then, if all the chromosomal determination, hormonal influence (nature), and the parental upbringing (nurture) can be overpowered by the will of the transgender adult, then what is that final determinant, and where does it begin? Why is this ambiguous "tranny-factor" so much more powerful than nature and nurture combined? Aren't you even the slightest bit curious?
CP: As for final authority, why can't it be the individual?
Because this individual does not live in the fairy-tale social vacuum of your hypothetical example!
CP: There is so much we don't understand about how the brain works, we don't have a test for gender dysphoria and I doubt we ever will.
Then we can only settle on attempting to find a purely mental etiology then, correct?
CP: In any case, finding differences in the brains or finger length ratios of heterosexual and homosexual people still hasn't convinced many people that orientation isn't always just a choice.
Like myself. I'm willing to see the hard proof, but the purely personal stories are (obviously) biased and potentially tainted.
CP: Even if we found a test and could prove that certain people were "meant" to be a different gender than their external sex, there'd still be bigots who claimed it was all a whim or a deliberate attempt to destroy civilization as we know it.
But then you're stepping off on an assumption that has yet to be determined. A little presumptuous there, ya think? Also, the GMA example here is a prime example of those who love to capitalize/prey upon the intersex for their own sensationalist benefits and other agendas. So yeah, social deconstructionists can and will make the transgendered their pawns if they step into the spotlight like this.
CP: As far as I'm concerned it is the responsibility of the rest of us to accept people for who they feel they are.
You still don't get it. Let's say a few years ago, you get to meet Thomas at a Christmas party as a pre-surgical woman, who doesn't bristle at being referred to as "she." Then three years later, Thomas is in transition and wants you to refer to him as "him." But wait, there's more.
Then Thomas stops mid-stream to have a baby. <--- You want that function/role hijacked by men? How about we get to own it in name only? Heh, didn't think so.
THEN Thomas either goes back on the daddy-track and finishes the job he set out to do, or runs out of money with the new family and remains in gender "flux" for the rest of "his" life.
"Hi Clever! I feel like a woman today!"
:time passes:
"Hey thyar, Clever! How've you been? I'm a man today!"
:more time passes:
"OMG, Clever! Hi! How've you been? I don't know what the hell I am today until we have the baby, and I dunno if we'll finish that project once junior goes into day-care."
If I knew this individual personally, he would be the shallowest; most mentally lost person I'd ever met. I wouldn't know him at all because he doesn't know himself. . .which makes me also wonder about the nature/function of the marriage he's in as well. All kinds of questions there that I haven't read yet.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Like myself. I'm willing
April 5, 2008 - 04:03 ET by cleverpigLike myself. I'm willing to see the hard
proof, but the purely personal stories are (obviously) biased
and potentially tainted.
Sexual Orientation and the Size of
the Anterior Commissure in the Human Brain. Laura S. Allen and Roger A. Gorski. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 89, No. 15 (Aug. 1,
1992), pp. 7199-7202
A difference in hypothalamic
structure between heterosexual and
homosexual men. S LeVay Science 30 August
1991:Vol. 253. no. 5023, pp. 1034 - 1037
LeVay S, Hamer DH.
Evidence for a biological influence in male homosexuality. Sci Am. 1994 May;270(5):44-9.
Hamer
DH, Hu
S, Magnuson
VL, Hu
N, Pattatucci
AM. A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male
sexual orientation. Science. 1993 Jul 16;261(5119):321-7.
http://www.bioteach.ubc.ca/TeachingResources/Biochemistry/FingerSexualOrientation.pdf
Q. Rahman and G. D. Wilson. Sexual orientation and the 2nd to 4th finger
length ratio: evidence for organising effects of sex hormones or developmental
instability? Psychoneuroendocrinology Volume 28, Issue 3,
April 2003, Pages 288-303
Sorry for the poor formatting. I';m too tired to retype it all.
Nothing to say? I'm
April 8, 2008 - 00:30 ET by cleverpigNothing to say? I'm shocked!
No, nothing to say at
April 9, 2008 - 03:05 ET by tracheostomyNo, nothing to say at all really. Both my gay contacts, as well as Zoe confirm that findings older than 5 years shouldn't be regarded (Edit: Oh wait! I already said that, must've missed that huh?). Not sure why though. They also state that Intersex individuals should not be confused with homosexuals.
Which just leaves me more confused than ever. So, if you want to throw links around, be my guest CP. <---BTW, the update on that one is two months ago.
Regardless, I really don't care about that aspect. None of this changes Thomas' blatent lack of commitment to his chosen gender and you bypassed all my other statements as if they didn't exist.
Simply put: If brain chemistry alone determines gender preference, there is something else in play here that is capable of overriding it.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
You said that in response
April 10, 2008 - 01:24 ET by cleverpigYou said that in response to issues of chromosomal versus morphological sex, not in direct address to my citations about biological determination of sexual orientation. If you weren't being specific, and instead think all science more than five years old should be thrown out, then I would have to disagree. I'm not saying we should go back to the fifties or anything, but we did some darn good science way back in 2002 :) Obviously, more recent research carries more weight, but that's no reason to discard everything. Zoe may well have a good reason that I don't know about to question sex determination literature beyond a certain point, but as I said, that wasn't the literature I was citing.
Your link addresses only a small part of my point and reveals a commonly held misconcention. There is a big difference between saying that sexual orientation is biological, and saying that it is genetic. I don't think there is a gene that makes anyone gay. I do, however, think that orientation is associated with changes in the brain, which indicates that for some people it is not a conscious choice. We don't know whether those brain differences are because of your genes, the activity level of your mother's adrenal gland, how much cod liver oil she took during pregnancy, or what toys you played with as an child. However, people tend to view this as a dichotomy, either you choose your orientation or it is encoded in your genes, and that is a simplistic view.
As for picking and choosing what I respond to, I often have to do that with long, many-pointed posts. I don't have time to address everything. I tend to pick battles that I can bring empirical evidence to. Your long description about why the person on Oprah is pathetic is not really something I can argue with, except to say that I could be equally pathetic in a less obvious way and still be allowed to have a kid.
Incidentally, you don't have to accompany so many of your posts with snarky pm's. I know how to use the "Track" tab, I'll figure out when you've said something :)
miracle ???
April 3, 2008 - 16:39 ET by LionKingThis she-male calls it a miracle.
Biologically still a woman, appearance altered to seem more manly, but yet, still a woman...how is this a miracle?
You know what, after
April 3, 2008 - 16:46 ET by BinxlyYou know what, after re-reading this, and reading Lion's response I have this to say.
F*** you. Seriously. I'm done with Newsbusters. This shows many here are just the worst of the worst. Continue ignoring REAL credible science and stick to the people who tell you what you want to hear.
I know this much, GOD would be disapointed in all of you who pass judgement like this. To those who disagree but are open to more info on it, I am not refering to you, as I said, I too used to think it was odd, but NEVER would I ever say these awful things or call transgenderism a 'lie.' That's just awful. Seriously, I hope God blesses you with some humility or at least some empathy.
Congrats, your first article has caused an interested poster to leave. Until the climate changes here on such issues, I've no desire to be an active part of here. I'm all for dissenting views, but I refuse to allow people like this author to speak as if their word is the final say.
Oh and for the record, The general scientific community disagrees with your link, if it was such a concern, sexual reassignment surgery would not be as accessable as it is. Oh, and before the author comes back on her high horse with 'horror stories' of those who regret sexual reassignment surgery, compare that number with the GINOURMOUS number of procedures done each year. You'd be lucky to find even a *miniscule* percentage of that number regret their decision.
Shame on you for judging something you have no point of refrence with Mrs. Fyfe. Shame on you.
To all who I have had good debate and conversation with, TM, Trach, Shawn, Sarc, Bigtimer, Freestinker, and any I may have left out, up until today I have greatly enjoyed our discourse. I wish you all well and hope nothing but the best for you all.
Sincerely yours,
Jeff
Talk about sc rewed up.
April 3, 2008 - 17:08 ET by kbworkmanIf God made her a woman, I doubt if God is too happy about her decision to try to change the fact.
The fact is that even though she has been surgically altered (partially) to resemble a man, she is still a woman. Check the DNA!
Far into the future it some archeologist test her reamins she will show FEMALE.
bye, Jeff
April 3, 2008 - 17:09 ET by LionKingGOD does not make mistakes.
[ He allows mistakes. Big difference. He allowed Sodom and Gomorrah to exist until they became too vile. ]
Take your toys and go home,
April 3, 2008 - 17:20 ET by Dan The Man 2Take your toys and go home, dont let the door hit you on the way out.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Jeff
April 3, 2008 - 21:01 ET by Kristen FyfeYou presume I'm a bigot. You presume I have no frame of reference from which to write. You know nothing about me.
My job is to confront media bias on a cultural level. Fair reporting on an issue this important requires the media to look at the opposing point of view. They did not. That was my point.
I apologize to Newsbusters fans for losing a reader.
Kristen
April 3, 2008 - 21:18 ET by BlondeNo need to apologize. Your point was media bias. The media chose to report this story as a "man" having a baby. Not as a transgendered person choosing to have a child.
So, I believe your post, as put up, was spot on. It was media bias. Not necessarily "liberal" bias....but floated about by all as a shocking story. Which, I suspect is unfortunate in all aspects.
The whole issue is one that, I believe is very misunderstood. Don't mistake me for any kind of an advocate. However, I've seen stories here before, on this topic, and have been kind of shocked at the reactions I've seen.
We have a poster here, who is transgendered, or as I suspect is the appropriate term..."intersexed". I had the opportunity to exchange a few pm's with this individual, because I knew absolutely nothing about the topic.
It was an illuminating discussion. As I understand it, there is a disconnect between the development of the brain and the body during gestation. With all of the resultant discordant developmental milestones. As a "normal" person, I can't imagine what dissonance a person born this way might encounter. It must be horrifying. Think about it.
So, while I understand that there are those who view these people as some sort of "freaks", I truly believe it is a physiological anomaly. Just as many creatures are born disfigured, so are the "transgendered". They can't help it, they didn't ask for it, they're just trying to cope as best they can with the hand they were dealt.
I think it's very unfortunate that the media has to promote them as freaks....it must be difficult enough to survive in this world without having the media pile on.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
I agree with your
April 4, 2008 - 00:59 ET by zfI agree with your statement, when it's something that happened unvoluntary other people should just accept it.
But don't please don't put "normal" in quotations for two reasons. One, transgendered people are not normal. It's not supposed to happen. To treat transgandered people exactly like everyone else is harmful, as people born with defects especially such overencompasing ones going to have vastly different needs and need different treatment than everybody else just to survive and live. To treat then like normal is harmful to them, just as taking away the crutches from a man with no legs is going to be a huge detriment to him.
Second, treating normal like just some other concept is something some people do to make abnormal behaviors such as peadophilia and incest become not evils to be rid of, but just something that's "different" from the rest of us and therefore to be accepted.
So, in effect, normal as nothing more than an artifical concept hurts decent people who deserve and need special treatment to cope and live happy lives but helps nasty people with abnormal and destructive behaviors become more accepted.
You Get It
April 4, 2008 - 07:53 ET by Zoe BrainBlonde, you get it, exactly. Thanks.
No need to be an advocate or whatever. I'm sure you have quite enough on, and fighting Moonbattery is a full-time job for anyone.
I'd be willing to discuss this with anyone who wants to be better informed. I'm not trying to prosletyse, and people of goodwill can end up totally disagreeing. But so many of the problems I and my son suffer are due to a pardonable lack of knowledge. That at least I can fix, even if no opinions are changed.
A good start is in the TS-101 article on my blog, or the Intersex/Transsex Q&A on Darwin Central.
Something that can be even more informative is just a quick visit to Lyn Conway's pages on unpublicised transsexual women and men .
One thing I must say, in all honesty. Yes, there's problems most wouldn't believe (like my 20-month legal fight just to get a passport, just to get the Bureaucrats to actually follow the law). But in the process, I've been honoured to meet some of the finest people on the planet. One gal who managed to land the 2/3 of an A-10 that was left after a direct SAM hit in Gulf War I, and is now flying with a major airline. Another who's a key part of the Non-Proliferation monitoring program, a world-renowned GeoScientist. Another in the Canadian Armed Forces who's about to leave for SW Asia. Women who believe in all that "Duty, Honour, Country" stuff, and don't just talk the talk, but walk the walk, whether our respective countries honour us in return or not.
Me, I'm just a Rocket Scientist and sometime designer of surface and submarine combat systems. A woman who's doing her PhD at age 50, and trying to be the best parent she can be of a very rambuctious 6 year old boy.
Call us Circus Freaks, "Nature's Mistakes", Spawn of Satan, whatever. Just don't call us Liberals, Ok?
You, Zoe Brain, have an
April 4, 2008 - 10:08 ET by KarmaYou, Zoe Brain, have an uncanny ability to, at the very least, make some people stop and re-visit their views on this subject. Your insight on this matter, without spewing anger and insults at those of us who have held a differing view, is refreshing and welcome.
This subject has very little impact on life in my own world and, as such, I wasn't looking to buy another outlook. The deal is not yet closed but what a good and honest salesman you are.
No apology needed
April 3, 2008 - 23:30 ET by LionKingSomeone with an axe to grind has an opposing view. Scientifically speaking, the pregnant person is a woman.
All the media attention is an attempt to make transexuality more mainstream. Middle America is not buying it. I standby my comment that this kind of exposure belongs in a circus freak show or at least as someone else pointed out, in a grocery store tabloid...right with the Monkey Boy.
I suppose it's nostalgic to
April 4, 2008 - 00:37 ET by cleverpigI suppose it's nostalgic to think that some people in this day and age still think it's okay to point and laugh at anyone different from themselves. Please don't use the phrase "scientifically speaking" when you're not.
Cleverpig, you mean like all those libs who point to others....
April 4, 2008 - 00:41 ET by R D Helm...and laugh their asses off?
Theme for Election '08: I want my mommy!
Not at "anyone" different,
April 4, 2008 - 01:05 ET by zfNot at "anyone" different, but those whose artificial "difference" (i.e. not something out of their control) is used as a willfull excuse to act inhuman and dress freakishly and slobbishy to show of how "cool" and "non-comformist" they are.
If that's really what you
April 4, 2008 - 01:18 ET by cleverpigIf that's really what you think transgender identity is, then I would humbly submit that you lack the trait of empathy, one of the most important human characteristics. I don't know, maybe they have a hormone treatment for that.
Hey cleverpiggy, while we
April 4, 2008 - 12:47 ET by bassndudeHey cleverpiggy, while we are speaking of harmone treatments, do they have a harmone for common sense? You might check into that.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Cleverpig...
April 4, 2008 - 12:43 ET by LionKingActually, I am a scientist. I may not be a biologist, but, I still know the difference between a man and a woman...based on science.
Again, another liberal troll without a comment of substance.
Check out my reply to Trach.
April 4, 2008 - 18:04 ET by cleverpigCheck out my reply to Trach. Scientists often speak unscientifically.
See Cleverpig?
April 4, 2008 - 18:38 ET by tracheostomyLK: Actually, I am a scientist.
LOL! Love it!
Because behind the alias, all our PhDs are just as good as yours there Clever. Therefore, the only thing that matters is showing your cards.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Lil Clever Piggy ???
April 4, 2008 - 20:07 ET by LionKingStill waiting for you to demonstrate how I spoke unscientifically.
Essentially, either prove that the person is biologically a man or admit that you are have no argument, but you are merely acting as a typical liberal letting emotion rule your thoughts.
"Scientifically speaking,
April 4, 2008 - 21:21 ET by cleverpig"Scientifically speaking, the pregnant person is a woman."
That's a very unscientific statement, from a biological pov. Much better would be "Morphologically speaking, the pregnant person is female."
Because the fact is that medical science accepts the possiblity that a person's gender is not simply their morphological sex. Chromosomal sex, morphological sex, and behavioral sex are not always the same thing, as one of Trach's links actually points out.
CP: Because the fact is
April 4, 2008 - 21:55 ET by tracheostomyCP: Because the fact is that medical science accepts the possiblity that a person's gender is not simply their morphological sex. Chromosomal sex, morphological sex, and behavioral sex are not always the same thing, as one of Trach's links actually points out.
Based on my offline discussions with Zoe, it's not as cut and dried as either of you seem to think. At the same time, I refuse to leave it hanging in the air unsettled.
We can't all be right about this. I'm willing to accept that an individual can be born with an inner gender identity that doesn't mesh with their anatomy, but I'm not willing to take the final step until I see something other than the latest theories.
And according to Zoe, everything older than 5 years should be thrown out completely, which only brings up more questions. >:p
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
You know what, after
April 3, 2008 - 16:47 ET by Binxly*
Wow
April 3, 2008 - 17:04 ET by justmeWow. Jeff, I am not at all angry that your opinion is radically different from mine and wrong. I am not filled with hatred or a need to lash out and attack you.
You are very offended on several levels. One is that this is the only way they could have their very own child and how could anyone deny them. My answer to that is this: there comes a point when having what you want is destructive both to yourself and to others. The fact that it is possible does not mean that it is good or right. Should people speak derisively of this child or of those two poor hurting people who will be her mothers? I don't think so. It is not hateful to acknowledge what ought to be obvious, but what is not because we are so bent on pursuing our desires at any costs while also demanding others accept our pursuit and desires as equally good... that is, this 'man' is really a woman.
I'm sorry that this will offend you. I hate neither those two women, nor their future child, nor you. I would sit in a room with any of you and share a cup of tea (despise coffee) and chat about anything. I pray that God will bless you.
Susan
Bravo Susan. . .
April 3, 2008 - 18:32 ET by tracheostomyJustme: My answer to that is this: there comes a point when having what you want is destructive both to yourself and to others. The fact that it is possible does not mean that it is good or right. Should people speak derisively of this child or of those two poor hurting people who will be her mothers? I don't think so. It is not hateful to acknowledge what ought to be obvious, but what is not because we are so bent on pursuing our desires at any costs while also demanding others accept our pursuit and desires as equally good... that is, this 'man' is really a woman.
This is exactly the point I tried to make as well. I would weep bitterly for both the mother and the child if a medical complication should (probably) develop. I've become very attached to people that I know have made the "wrong" decisions in life and watched them die as a result. My mother and my wife have told me I need to learn to detach from these people I encounter online and in the news, but I can't. If intense passion and love for a person's future potential is really hate, then I guess I'm a hater as well.
Thomas simply doesn't understand the consequences of the choices he is making, and there is no way to reason effectively with him. I imagine it would be quite similar to my conversations with Binx.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Does this joker have a Y chromosome?
April 3, 2008 - 17:01 ET by kbworkmanHe may have been surgically altered to look almost like a man, but if he hasn't go a Y chromosome, that's all she is. A surgically altered woman.
This crap about a man having a baby is just that. CRAP.
I wonder why Jeff is so defensive?
April 3, 2008 - 18:22 ET by Wilbur747I once worked with a transgendered person who got just as upset as Jeff on stories like this.
Judging by his response, it does make me wonder why he's so upset about our opinions.
Y Chromosomes
April 4, 2008 - 05:43 ET by Zoe BrainMaybe you should look at this blog. Someone with Swyer's syndrome.
She has xy chromosomes, but has been informed that she could have a fertilised egg implanted, and carry a child.
She looks marginally more F than M, but identifies as neither.
There's plenty of women with y chromosomes, and some have been mothers in the usual way.
There are people with 5ARD or 17BHDD, who are born looking like little girls, but masculinise later. Some have been fathers, despite their Female Birth Certificates (those can't be changed in several states, as part of the fight against the Homer-Sexual Agenda...).
It's usually simple, men are men, women are women, but sometimes it's not. Do Lab tests, and you'll find out that 1 in 60 are not 100% M, nor 100% F. They may not know that, many such conditions are asymptomatic, or nearly so. You could be one of them, unless you've had an expensive Karyotype test. Sometimes not even then.
My son is Intersexed. I'm not going to let the bigotry, ignorance and hate do to him what's been done to me, not without a fight. I'm Intersexed too, one of the rarer and more spectacular versions.
I know that most of the opposition is based on ignorance, rather than malice. I know that many find this whole subject nauseating. Well, I'm not real thrilled by it myself. I'm not proud of it, and I'm not ashamed. Just embarrassed. Hopefully if I can keep on commenting on places such as this, keep on adducing the scientific data, the medical facts, and letting people know the seven kinds of fertiliser we get from legal, social, religious and even some fringe medical groups, those with goodwill will allow their intellect to over-rule their revulsion.
This guy is transsexual. Odds are he has a male brain. Ok, that's a simplification, but his gender identity is set as male by partially masculinised neuroanatomy anyway. He's a guy just as much as any other man here. Now his wife can't bear children. But he's taken the Lemon that Life handed him, and is making Lemonade, turning a horrible medical condition into an advantage, for once. That takes Balls, as he knows just how utterly Hellish having the wrong hormone mix is with a neuroanatomy like his. But he's doing it or his child.
Now I may be a "freak", some thing that belongs in a circus (in some views) or an extermination camp (in others), but I know a Man when I see him.
I'm also my son's biological father, even though I'm a woman. If you have a problem with that, see my OB/GYN.
There's a reason why this pregnancy has been publicised, when the dozens of previous ones weren't. See Transparent, a documentary movie for goodness' sake about 19 previous cases from 2005. It's because in the backlash against Gay Marriage, we've been caught in the crossfire. we used to sneak under the radar, and not rock the boat. We slipped between the cracks of legislation, un-noticed and un-bothered. But now we have to make waves, or our few remaining previous human rights will continue to be eroded.
"There are people with 5ARD
April 5, 2008 - 06:36 ET by justme"There are people with 5ARD or 17BHDD, who are born looking like little
girls, but masculinise later. Some have been fathers, despite their
Female Birth Certificates (those can't be changed in several states, as
part of the fight against the Homer-Sexual Agenda...)."
"I know that most of the opposition is based on ignorance, rather than
malice. I know that many find this whole subject nauseating. Well, I'm
not real thrilled by it myself. I'm not proud of it, and I'm not
ashamed. Just embarras