Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Sex and Relationships

Pregnant Men

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted April 8, 2008.


Thomas Beatie is not the first transgendered man to get pregnant. So why is he getting so much attention, and why now?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Annalee Newitz

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Thomas Beatie is actually not the first man to get pregnant. Almost a decade ago, a San Francisco transgendered man named Matt Rice got pregnant and had a cute son. Several years after that, I met another pregnant transman in San Francisco. He was telling his story, with his wife, at a feminist open mic. So why is Beatie getting all the credit, and why now?

Beatie is the first pregnant man most people will ever meet. He's the guy in People magazine right now looking preggers and hunky, and the guy who was on The Oprah Winfrey Show last week. And it makes sense that he's the first wonder of tranny obstetrics medical science to hit the spotlight. He's a nice, small-town Oregon boy, married for five years to a nice, small-town lady, and his full beard and muscles make it quite obvious that he's a dude. In other words: he's not a freak from a freaky city like San Francisco. He is, as they say in the mainstream media, relatable.

And he's playing his poster boy role perfectly. On Oprah, you could tell he was a friendly, shy person (albeit with a black belt in karate). Visibly nervous, obviously proud as hell of his wife and soon-to-be-born daughter, he didn't try to make a political statement or lecture anybody about gender binaries being stupid. He had a hard time explaining why he had become a man, too. Often when Oprah asked pointed questions he would shrug and say, "It's hard to explain." Exactly like a dude to be sort of inarticulate about his own dudeness. So another part of his appeal to the mainstream media is that he fits gender stereotypes.

Plus, he's the guy every woman wants to marry. Not only is he cute and happy to build things around the house, he's willing to have your baby for you too. As Beatie's wife said to Oprah with a grin, "What woman wouldn't want her husband to get pregnant?"

So we know the answers to the "Why Beatie?" part. Every new minority needs a friendly, relatable poster child: lesbians have Ellen, and I suppose you could say mixed-race people have Barack Obama. The real question is: why now? Or even: can it happen now?

In some ways, those are the same questions people are asking about a possible Obama presidency. Can the majority of people in the United States accept a mixed-race guy in a role previously reserved for white dudes? To return to the issue of Beatie, can the majority accept a man taking on a role (pregnant dad) they'd never contemplated before, except when watching a bad Arnold Schwarzenegger sci-fi comedy called Junior?

I think they can, but not for the same reasons they might accept Obama. Beatie is not a political creation like Obama -- he's the creation of medical technology, pure and simple. Hormones and surgery made him male. Artificial insemination made him pregnant. There would have been no way to accept Beatie 10 years ago because he literally could not have existed. But contemporary medical technology has given us a chance.

Considering Beatie in that context -- as the release version of a new kind of biotech-enabled man -- makes it clear why this is happening now.

Of course, social changes have a lot to do with his emergence into the public spotlight. Gender roles are shifting, and it's often hard to say what it means anymore to be a "real man" or a "real woman." The vast majority of people may have a common-sense definition of masculine and feminine, but even those definitions have changed a lot over the past 50 years.

So maybe medical technology is just now catching up with cultural shifts, or maybe cultural shifts are pushing us to use technologies we've had for a while in new gender-blurring ways. All I know is that biotechnology is making theories of gender fluidity concrete, making ideas into flesh. And we're seeing a pattern that always emerges when we're right on the edge of accepting a big social change. First, the ideas turn into something real that people can touch -- or, in the case of Beatie, talk to. And then comes the next phase. Whatever that may be.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: thomas beatie, trans, pregnancy, gender

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Sex and Relationships! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Ok.....
Posted by: fluffmuffinmom on Apr 8, 2008 8:14 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Saw this guy on Oprah and I gotta tell ya'...I thought I was one of the most open-minded people around...but I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around this one.

I'm trying very hard not to be judgemental, I mean, they certainly seem like a happy, loving couple, but my inner voice is screaming: "What about the freakin' children?!?!?!?!"

Can someone help me out here?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ok..... Posted by: vbg
» RE: Ok..... Posted by: 23skidoo
» RE: Ok..... Posted by: igancedo
» Well what about the child? Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Ok..... Posted by: beatles64
» downside Posted by: e rice
» RE: downside Posted by: pfeifer999
» Downside? Posted by: donl51
Not a male though.
Posted by: daniel1982 on Apr 8, 2008 11:03 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'Male' in this context is not exactly accurate. A pregnant individual with female reproductive organs is a female.

On a side note, what is the motivation of going through genital mutilation and the hormone treatment, if you don't want to actually be a male! Did this person do it solely for cosmetic reasons?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Should be interesting legally
Posted by: Andrew_S on Apr 8, 2008 11:54 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Try as I may to be open minded and progressive, I fear legally this opens up a minefield of more desocializing/degenderizing techniques. Adding to the already burgeoning arsenal of feminist style legal statutes. It may or may not turn out to be positive for males, particularly in respect of children. After all, if these 'legal' males can have by virtue of a womb a child, then there is no barrier to prevention of ectogenesis. That should ultimately level the gender playing field, and women can happily go about their merry way being males without owning a progenoic right by default. Males may then reproduce without the necessary female presence, but I do add the caveat, 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions'. Understanding the legaleze of modern administered social bureacracy is an interesting sojourn into futility. Since the law is apparently organic and evolving based on revenue, not a legal right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» until uterine replicators Posted by: e rice
Watching Them Squirm
Posted by: Fruno on Apr 9, 2008 1:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's amusing to see that even here, amidst what must be one of the most progressive populations online, transgender questions are met with hostility, denial and panic.

"What about the children?" Please! You sound Victorian, and very foolish. The children -- all the children -- will simply grow up to have a broad understanding of gender, and will be less easily frightened than their parents.

Come on, people. Read what Annalee is saying. Transgenderism is just about being people being their genuine selves, their full selves. Whether you think it improper or not, all kinds of gender morphing is now possible, which means it is also inevitable. Get ready for the real world.

Why do people always want to judge the new as being bad? If it were up to you lot, we wouldn't have accepted the wheel yet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thanks... Posted by: fluffmuffinmom
» RE: Thanks... Posted by: Fruno
» RE: Thanks... Posted by: fork
» RE: Thanks... Posted by: fluffmuffinmom
» RE: Thanks... Posted by: fork
» RE: Thanks... Posted by: fluffmuffinmom
» "there is risk in any novelty. " Posted by: BenCaxton12
» Nope, you're wrong on this... Posted by: darkhorse
» RE: Nope, you're wrong on this... Posted by: pfeifer999
This is a gay rights issue, not a transsexual debate
Posted by: LisaW on Apr 9, 2008 3:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Speaking as a woman born transsexual, I think the the GLBTI
community IS ready for a pregnant man, why not? But you have to
understand exactly who that community is, and who it is not. This
is a community that is formed from various groups of people with
one thing in common that defines their existence as a larger group -
Sexual Orientation and lifestyle prefernce.

Beware, of the anachronism GLBTI. because the 'T' and the 'I' added
to the more traditional GLB is not representative of genuine
transsexual people. This is an artificial extension tacked on for
political convenience and without permission from genuine
transsexual or intersex people themselves. It is done presumably
with the best intentions because we all suffer from the same common
enemies: homophobic bigots. But in the case of transsexual people
this is not because we are all homosexual (most are not) but we are
often mistakenly perceived to be.

I cannot speak for Intersex people, but as for transsexual people,
I do know we are defined by the physical bodies we are born with
and the efforts we must undertake to correct our bodies through the
means of chemical hormones and drastic surgery. We, as transsexual
people, have a very definite sense of our gender identity, we are
not gender confused. As a woman I would not ever want to retain any
physical reminder of the male characteristics I once had. And I
would expect for a man born transsexual the same applies, no man
would consider himself in his core identity male whilst CHOOSING to
retain and use his female anatomy in such a fundamentally feminine
defining act such as giving birth to a child.

Only genuine transsexual people undertake the painful one way
street that takes us as far along the journey from one physical sex
to the other as is scientifically possible . People like Thomas
Beatty who chose not to take that journey define themselves by that
choice as NOT transsexual. In short genuine transsexual people MUST
if at all possible change our bodies to match our brains. This has
nothing to do with sexual orientation, gender dysphoria, who we are
attracted to and what nightclubs we like to hang out in. Do not
confuse gender identity with sexual orientation.

In the case of Thomas Beatty, whist I wish him all the best with
what he is doing and I fully support his right to do it. I do not
consider him to be a transsexual person. I support him as a gay
woman, not a man. I support him the same way I would support any
other lesbian or gay people in their quest to live as they chose
and enjoy the right to family life. This is a gay rights issue. The
debate over him having a baby to my mind is disingenuous when it is
considered to be part of the transsexual agenda. He is not a
genuine man born transsexual.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BEATIE IS A FEMALE
Posted by: the qsq on Apr 9, 2008 8:37 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
SORRY, BEATIE IS A FEMALE WHO IT APPEARS SAW OPPORTUNITY YEARS AGO AND MAY HAVE PLANNED THIS "PREGNANT MAN" STORY LONG AGO BECAUSE SHE CHOSE TO KEEP HER REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS -- AND MADE A DECISION NOT TO BE STERILIZED. SHE'S ANTICIPATING MAKING PLENTY OF MONEY AS WELL, WHICH SHE AND HER PARTNER MENTIONED ON OPRAH. SORRY, BUT GETTING TESTERONE SHOTS, GROWING A BEARD, AND HAVING YOUR GENDER STATUS LEGALLY CHANGED DOES NOT MAKE YOU A MAN.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: BEATIE IS A FEMALE Posted by: fluffmuffinmom
» RE: BEATIE IS A FEMALE Posted by: the qsq
» She is not a man Posted by: Artkansas
I do believe...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Apr 9, 2008 9:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm going to have to agree with one thing many have said... this is not a man.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stop with the Negativity
Posted by: egg86 on Apr 9, 2008 9:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are some judgmental comments on this website. First off, Thomas Beatie is a transgendered individual. As he explained in his article for the Advocate, he knew that he wanted a child and so kept his reproductive organs to allow that possibility. However, he identifies as male. Gender identification has nothing to do with biological sex and we should respect his self-identification. Is a cisgendered woman less of a woman if she has a hysterectomy or a double masectomy?
Second, for all those who are worried about "the children," why? What are you so concerned about? That his child/ren will grow up with fluid understandings of gender and sexual identity? That she/they will know that their parents loved them and wanted them so much that they were willing to take an unconventional route to conceive? This is a transmale and his wife in a loving relationship and I feel to see how anyone could have a problem with that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Stop with the Negativity Posted by: woodstockdc
» RE: Stop with the Negativity Posted by: Dale Dressler
» RE: Stop with the Negativity Posted by: crashgrab
Beatie might have a little game...
Posted by: the qsq on Apr 9, 2008 9:50 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the Beatie defenders, let's just admit that this INDIVIDUAL might just have a little game. It's quite clear, this INDIVIDUAL has got some serious game. All ain't what it appears!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think
Posted by: g50 on Apr 9, 2008 9:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
my gender studies professors are going to shake their heads in disappointment, but something about being pregnant makes me think that he's not really a dude.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» RE: Totally nuts . . . Posted by: jpopphan@charter.net
» RE: Totally nuts . . . Posted by: pfeifer999
Why now? It's an election year!!
Posted by: jpopphan@charter.net on Apr 9, 2008 1:48 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course he's being trotted out now as a freak. (He isn't a freak, but that's how Middle America will view him.) It's an election year! And it's not gonna be a good one for conservatives, so the media rolls out the freak show to hype and scare the hell out of the lumpenproletariat.

I wish this couple well, and to those who are offended or find the whole idea disgusting I can only say GROW THE HELL UP.

Their child will grow up in a loving home where he or she will know that he/she is wanted. How many children today can say that? This child will be just fine.... it's the ignorant people this child will confront in school, etc. that will cause him/her problems, not his/her parents.

Quite frankly, outside of the "oddity" factor there really isn't much to this story. What other reason would there be for even covering this pregnancy. So a transgender FTM decided to keep his female sex organs and later decided to be impregnated and carry the child. So what? Big flipping deal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» where do you live Posted by: e rice
» RE: where do you live Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: where do you live Posted by: e rice
» RE: where do you live Posted by: pfeifer999
I certainly hope this person has stopped taking androgens
Posted by: fanny666 on Apr 9, 2008 6:33 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a neuroendocrinologist... I must say that I am more than a bit worried about the baby... if it is a female fetus especially, the androgens can really block differentiation.

The live-and-let-live attitude from the Left is fine, but there is no doubt that this baby is developing under experimental conditions. I wish I knew more about the current meds being taken during the pregnancy. None, I hope.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The only thing I have a problem with is....
Posted by: Libbie on Apr 9, 2008 7:29 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if Beatie wanted to be a male then why not go all the way and be one? He has a wife, why did she not choose to have the child? If he knew that he would one day want to bear children then why not just stay female and a lesbian?

Ultimately it is their lives...they can do as they will but once you make a spectacle of yourself in front of millions of people then you can expect to be judged and criticized. No whining...please.

I do not fear for the child in any way...hopefully these people are serious about bringing humans into this world and will raise it to the best of their ability in a loving environment. That is the most we can hope for with any couple having children.

My opinion? This does not pass the smell test for me...Beatie has an agenda which is apparent by the fact that even though he wants us to think of him as a male he is still preforming as a female. S/he refuses to live his dream quietly like the rest of us. We must ask ourselves...why?

The last time I checked only females of the species bear children.

Final analysis...he...is a she [still].

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is he male? Is she female? Perhaps we need to define gender as well as marriage?
Posted by: rickiey on Apr 9, 2008 9:53 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before you go ballistic about me being in favor of a definition of marriage, let me assure you that although I'm married to a female, I think that the definition of marriage should allow me to marry a male instead. I could list the reasons, but lets face it, this is a progressive site, and you probably already know em.

Ok, moving on. Gender? What gender IS this person? I think there needs to be a consistent definition. Sorry, trans doesn't cover it.

Call me strange, but I think your body parts define your gender. This isn't a pregnant man, she's a pregnant woman who has some masculine features. Now, I think some of you trans-sexuals may not be keen on this idea, because pre-op, that means you are still your original gender, even though you FEEL the opposite gender. I understand. But your gender isn't your feelings, it is your body. Besides, a definition of gender shuts up those right wing idiots who say "born a man, always a man" for post-ops, and I say that is worth it.

So, yes, in my opinion (and I'm have enough self-awareness to understand the egocentricity of considering my opinion as the only valid one, but I'll embrace it anyway)this is about a pregnant woman.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For Those of You Saying He Isn't a Man
Posted by: EKSwitaj on Apr 10, 2008 2:06 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A pregnant man is just as much a man as a flightless bird is a bird. In both cases, you have a figure that is not quite central in a radial category. The difference is that kiwis and emus don't make you uncomfortable because there isn't so much social and emotional investment in restricting the category of birds.

Oh, and Libbie, "if Beatie wanted to be a male then why not go all the way and be one?" Clearly, he didn't want to be that kind of man. Also, I try to live my dreams loudly and encourage other people to do the same. But then again, I do prefer penguins to sparrows.


EKSwitaj
elizabethkateswitaj.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think this is wonderful.
Posted by: stockpix on Apr 10, 2008 4:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't see what the big thing is here, sure it is a hair confusing to those who have not thought about gender changes. And there is a very natural human tendency to initially view change as a bad thing. Personally, I'd often wondered at the desperation to change sex when it meant loss of fertility, so I'm glad there is a middle ground for people who need it. But who in the end, after they think deeply about it, really cares? If they make some money from a storm of media attention, I say good for them but I tend to doubt it will be worth their loss of privacy. I'm sure they will love the child to the best of their abilities and really that is all any parent can do. Mother, father, male, female, the kid will undoubtedly figure it out just fine, since it will clearly be well loved. So, I can do nothing less than to heartily congratulate them for their impending child.

P.S. I understand that all male hormone treatments were stopped well before the pregnancy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Experimental Children
Posted by: GPFrank on Apr 10, 2008 5:11 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My biggest problem is the use of our knowledge which is undoubtedly still limited to try to bring and raise children in synthetic environments and bodies. Now I believe in sustaining those that are handicapped as a result of genetics or birth by every way possible, but why take the risk of producing more of the same by introducing means which actually have not been tested? I have been opposed to artificial insemination and cloning, most of all . It even seems illogical to try to save and raise a baby who has had less than five months in the womb. Opposed to that is psychological research that has shown statistically that the child benefits from the attachment associated with having been carried by the parent as opposed to having been adopted. For that matter, all of the arguments are statistical.
But with regard to sex and gender, so much of that is something that happens in the brain
and by now we know that some brains simply are different. In that regard a person is what he or she thinks he or she is.
But as to who makes a "game" out of the situation of differences and prejudices is an ethical and moral question in which everyone
has their own responsibility.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

heteronormative gender roles
Posted by: simpliesnez on Apr 10, 2008 5:56 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope you all realize that when you question whether or not this man is really a "man" due to the implications of his pregnancy you are just reinstating heteronormative gender roles of society today. "Why didn't the wife just get pregnant?" I don't know...maybe she CAN'T, or maybe it's DANGEROUS for her. Or maybe, exactly what they said, they want to make money...At least they are honest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

tyranny of sex?
Posted by: luzmejor on Apr 10, 2008 6:12 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These people are like everyone else, confused by the fences that have been erected around the "family."

They obviously want the closeness of family life and the support of each other. It is just unfortunate that one of them had to feel compelled to conform herself to the fearful "norms" of our very confused and sex-obsessed society.

Labels, people! It's time to give them up entirely.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Say it with me, "Acceptance"
Posted by: jenp77 on Apr 10, 2008 7:15 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm completely shocked about the way this topic is being dealt with in this forum. The ignorance and closed-mindedness is pretty disgusting. I think it is great and totally appropriate for people to have genuine questions about this, but suggesting that there is some sort of transexual agenda happening here is no different from the homosexual agenda language used to minimize and discount our realities. Saying things like "he is really a she" is a bullying tactic that bespeaks the fear people have around thir own shaky sense of identity. Yes, he is a man. Why? B/C gender is a social construct and b/c he says he is. Can a man be pregnant? Yes, if he has a uterus and ovaries. There is a huge difference between sex and gender. Sex is about the organs we have, gender is about the more complicated stuff like identity and expression. Our brains dictate gender. Biology dictates our sex organs. They don't always match up. And check this out: Even if this guy never had any surgeries or took hormones, he's a man if he says he is. I know, your brain is starting to hurt.

If you had to take a stab at this guy's gender identity in your post, I say challenge yourself to question why this threatens you so much. And it doesn't threaten you or you wouldn't have this kind of a hostile reaction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Gender is a synomym for sex Posted by: LeeAnnG
» RE: Say it with me, "AFFIRMATION" Posted by: pfeifer999
» RE: Say it with me, "Acceptance" Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Say it with me, "Acceptance" Posted by: armswideopen
» NOT LOGICAL HERE'S WHY Posted by: planet doomed
What's the fuss?
Posted by: realist on Apr 10, 2008 7:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If they didn't go this route, they could adopt or use a surrogate, so the "what about the children" thing doesn't really bother me.

In the meantime, wake me when someone who doesn't have female reproductive organs decides to get pregnant. Now THAT will be a story - kinda like when you see a gymnast with male organs try the parallel bars!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I Feel Sorry For The KID
Posted by: Mexitli on Apr 10, 2008 8:02 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Poor thing.

My mommy, my daddy, my mommy, my daddy!

Poor Kid!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's very simple really..
Posted by: cyr3n on Apr 10, 2008 8:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If a 50-yr old woman, undergoes plastic surgery to look like a 26-yr old woman (ie: facelift, boob job)... she's still a 50-yr old woman. She's not magically 26 now in the same way a woman who gets hymen reconstruction is not a virgin.

Likewise, I'm sorry but, just because a woman goes and gets her tits cut off and takes hairy-pills .. doest make her a man. You still got XX chromosomes, the brain is modularized like a female's, and there are things internally (bone structure) that would still indicate 500yrs from now in an archaeological dig that... you're a woman.

That being said, ppl should be allowed to pursue whatever avenues they need to feel happy in their own skin. If that means getting a hymen and pretending to be a virgin so be it. Beatie is obviously a pregnant woman -- who's invested a lot of time and money to look like a dude. case closed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Good concise explanation Posted by: JLPearson
» RE: It's very simple really.. Posted by: planet doomed
man/woman male/female
Posted by: karyse on Apr 10, 2008 8:42 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Careful with language. She is a female living as a man. A man has a wife, a woman has a husband. A female carries children in her womb and a male produces sperm. So while she may be a "man" she is certainly not a "male."

The problem here is purely linquistic. "Man" and "woman" are socially constructed concepts. "Male" and "female" are scientificly valid terms, as is "androgeny" and "hermaphrodite" (the earthworm is both male and female).

It may be time for new socially constructed concepts, such as feman, malewom, or whoTheFckKnows.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: man/woman male/female Posted by: stilldreaming
» RE: man/woman male/female Posted by: mcstewey
Daddy, why do you sit down in the bathroom?
Posted by: pfeifer999 on Apr 10, 2008 9:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anybody who says that the Beattie child can expect a completely healthy is fooling themselves.

To frame my comment up front, I'm not saying that the Beatties won't love their child, and I'm not saying that they won't do their very best to raise that child in a healthy way. I'm certainly not saying that many of hetero people aren't incompetent buffoons as parents.

But let's assume the child is born healthy, and that Thomas' heavy-duty hormone treatments have not already had an adverse reaction on the developing fetus.

Let's face facts. At some point that child is going to realize that "Daddy" is not what he seems to be.

If the Beatties decide to talk about "Daddy's" gender issues when their child is young, no reasonable person would deny that conversation will cause that child a lot of confusion and doubt.

If they choose not to tell the child at an early age, the child will eventually figure it out on his or her own. No reasonable person would deny that discovery will cause resentment, anger, and trust issues.

The other plain truth is that this child is, through no choice of his or her own, being born into the world as a gender-issue football. By putting themselves in the national media spotlight, the Beatties have chosen that life for their child. That strikes me as intensely selfish . . . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good post
Posted by: Nora on Apr 10, 2008 9:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now that made me laugh right out...Thanks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For The Record
Posted by: darkhorse on Apr 10, 2008 9:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Beattie is not the first ftm person to get pregnant. It's been going on for years. Beattie is just the first to make a media circus out of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: For The Record Posted by: jippolito
I am disgusted
Posted by: jippolito on Apr 10, 2008 10:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a transgender man (FTM), I find myself disgusted by the ignorant comments made about Mr. Beatie and his decision to have a child. I cannot imagine that Mr. Beatie expected this story to become as controversial as it did. After reading people's comments, I cannot help but feel that some of these negative reactions are no different then the way people used to view a women's right to "choose." From what I can tell, Mr. Beatie talked to a number of medical providers about his reproductive options, which suggests to me that he made a very conscious and informed choice, a choice many others take completely for granted. Additionally, his wife is unable to have children, which may have also influenced his deicision to get pregnant. Personally, I know a number of transgender people who have tried over and over again to adopt, but have been unable to do so because of their transgender identities. As a person who works closely with the transgender community, both as a mental health clinician and advocate, I look forward to watching more and more transgender people execute their personal right to bare children, in whatever way their body is able to do so. If someone's body is structured to bare children in a certain form or fashion, then all power to them for making a choice to do what they need to do to make that happen. Let us not forget that anatomical sex (which includes one's reproductive parts), has nothing to do with one's gender identity. I, for one, am able to separate out the difference, are you?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» too bad adoption was not a option Posted by: stilldreaming
this is hilarious
Posted by: richenza on Apr 10, 2008 10:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and also true. Aren't there enough real right-wing media conspiracies? Do we need to make new ones up?

I think a child raised in a loving, healthy alternate-lifestyle household would be exactly as well-adjusted as a child raised in a loving, well-adjusted traditional family. Isn't that the point? Why would they be better?

If it was true that the only way to acheive tolerance and open-mindeness towards a state of being was to experience that state of being, that would bode poorly for us as a society.

I can't be transgender (or gay, or black, or poly, or pagan, or whatever). It isn't how I am built. I can't change my family members into any of these states of being either.

I can teach my children to be accepting of other states of being, whether they discover them in others or in themselves.

Would a different hypothetical family be better at it than I? I leave it to the reader to decide.

Just so you all know, though, I'm going to be raising kids regardless. Let's hope those who imply I can't do it as well are wrong.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

having a vagina = female (even with a beard)
Posted by: stilldreaming on Apr 10, 2008 1:27 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"he" is not a male. He has ovaries, a uterus, and a vagina.

*shrug* I don't care what "he" calls himself, but he is not a he, not yet. When he completes the surgery, he'll be a transgender he. Before then, she/he/it is a woman in the process of becoming a man.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Help me out here....
Posted by: armswideopen on Apr 10, 2008 3:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Help me out here. I understand that this person still has female genitals and a female reproductive system, but had her breasts removed and hormone treatments. So I don't understand how "she" is a man? What makes a man a man and a woman a woman?

It seems to me she is still a woman hoping to be a man or acting as a man. Or am I wrong, and she's had her genitals reconstructed?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Help me out here.... Posted by: armswideopen
» RE: Help me out here.... Posted by: aouie01
can you just choose to call yourself whatever?
Posted by: abido0 on Apr 10, 2008 3:46 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some seem to be saying that gender identity is just a matter of what an individuals "feels like" he is. If an adult individual "feels like" a woman, she's a woman. If he "feels like" a man, he's a man.

This is said despite the fact that we know that there are these scientific differences between males and females. Some folks say that gender is separate from sex, but I haven't read anyone's comments yet that state that this person is a "female man". Advocates for this position try to leave the words female and male out of the discussion.

I don't want any discrimination against gay, lesbian, transgendered, queer, or any other kind of people. I think all avenues should be open for personal expression. If she wanted to do this, more power to her. What I don't agree with is the notion that we just choose who we are. We might choose certain behaviors, or bodily modifications, but biology has a lot to say about who we are.

Do you think that we can just choose who we are? For example, I'm a fair-skinned, tall, Irish-looking white man in my early 40s. If I choose to be (and "feel it" in my mind), can I be an African-American? How about an octogenarian? A dwarf?

These notions are absurd. I can't be any of these people, and I also can't be a female.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Reactionaries on Alternet
Posted by: zeegit on Apr 10, 2008 5:34 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's up with all the bigotry against transgender people here in the comments?? I thought Alternet was a progressive site. What's up with all the reactionaries over here today???

Look. It's Thomas's decision whether he identifies as a man. Not yours. End of story.

So stop saying that Thomas is really a woman because of blah-blah-blah. He's a man. His decision. Not yours.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» not reactionary, not bigoted... Posted by: fluffmuffinmom
» RE: not reactionary, not bigoted... Posted by: armswideopen
» It's not bigotry, its propaganda. Posted by: begruntleed
Ridiculous
Posted by: cjennmom on Apr 10, 2008 5:54 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A person's gender is determined by their DNA at birth. The only people for whom it is a true question are those few unfortunates who were born with physical characteristics of both genders. The rest of the "sexually confused" are simply fighting who they are. Let's face it - if you think you are someone other than who and what you were born, you are *mentally ill*. You don't need medical treatments to change your body, you need psychiatric evaluation to face reality as it is and as you are - male or female by birth as determined by nature and God.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: idiculous Posted by: mcstewey
» RE: idiculous Posted by: cjennmom
» RE: idiculous Posted by: skydog
» RE: idiculous Posted by: cjennmom