Shame on them. They seem to have picked an Oprah clip designed to portray the couple as animals and not people with the vet thing, putting the entire story wildly out of context and then peppering it with her going "this is disgusting" over and over again as she tries to not even listen to the facts. When did the tabloids get ahold of television, and where's a good liberal news source when you need one?

OK, I need to find an email address of the producer so I can let them know how "sick" and "grossed out" those 3 "news" anchors just made me.

They owe this couple an apology-- they insinuate that this man is pregnant with some half human/half parrot thing-- something I haven't seen ANY other news outlet try and do.

It's practically a rallying cry for 'gather up your pitchforks and go kill this freak!'

What is so gross about this? Really. I'd like to know. It's not that hard to understand that this is a man who was formerly a woman who still has child-bearing reproductive organs... how hard is that to understand?

Unless of course you are TRYING to make the case that trans people are HIDEOUS and DISGUSTING.

They make me sick.

I don't think it's disgusting, but I do think this "man" is now a woman, since she's pregnant. She probably can go back to being a man after the birth of the baby, but will she want to? It's a very interesting scenario.

What y'all said.

I'm curious, though, about the choice of title, which seems to be a careful attempt to avoid identifying Beatie by either name or gender. I don't think it's an appropriate response to the transphobic media frenzy to neuter Mr. Beatie.

tinfoil hattie: You are kidding right? Have you heard of the concept of gender identification? Just because someone is biologically female doesn't mean they identify as female. The man in question has a female body and identifies as a male. He did before he got pregnant, he does now he is pregnant and he will after he gives birth. At no point did he "swap" and your use of "man" complete with scare quotes is offensive.

They use male pronouns when talking about him. It is strange that they offer that bit of etiquette while calling him disgusting, ect.

dykelawyer, actually i was just trying to cut down on the amount of words in the title, there was no deliberate attempt to not identify Beatie by his gender. just trying to be short and accurate. but if anyone has a better post title, i'm all for it!

actually, thought of a better (and shorter!) one. changed.

tinfoil hattie: To add to what fatacademic said, I watched the Oprah thing, and he said that he, somewhat to his own surprise, felt no less of a man now that he's pregnant. Personally, I don't feel comfortable or capable of applying what I think about gender expression in myself and others to someone else's gender identity. I can think all I want, and sometimes even form opinions, about the way a person is acting, but I can't see inside her or his mind, so when it comes to identification, I think that's best done by one's self.

Dykelawyer, men can't get pregnant and they can't have babies. How do you decide you're a man and then decide, "Well, except for this one part where I want to get pregnant"?

I understand all about "identifying" as one gender or another, and I don't think there's one set of criteria that determines how one identifies. I just don't buy that "men" (and what do you mean by scare quotes?) get pregnant.

Sorry this offends you. I'm entitled to my opinion. In my opinion, if you get pregnant and have a baby, you're not a man, even if you call yourself a man.

Maybe this person is neither a "man" nor a "woman." Maybe this person is both. Maybe this person is neither. Maybe there aren't enough definitions of gender.

But if this person is pregnant, she's not a man.

The three anchors had different attitudes, and the woman was, I think, the worst. The lead anchor (sorry, I don't know their names) I only heard use a female pronoun once, and given the situation and the attitude of the others, I found that surprisingly good. The other two just seemed to think that if they were uncomfortable with the situation then they should take it out on others. how very 'high school' of them.

tinfoil hattie:
what exactly do you think makes a man a man? Or a woman a woman? Is it based solely on the in/ability to get pregnant/give birth? If so, how do you account for the infertile?

Wow, classy. I continue to find myself amazed that the same people who'll argue left, right and center to a woman contemplating an abortion that pregnancy, childbirth, and parenthood are lovely and wonderful will go on and on about how two people who desperately want and love their child and their baby are all sick freaks.

tinfoil hattie, our definition of gender and society's limited allowances for gender expression are definitely too limiting. The problem is conflating gender and biological/chromosomal sex, which is what you do when you say a person who carries a fetus and gives birth can't be a man.

Why not? Why are we so wrapped up in enforcing what makes a person a man or a woman? Biology is not destiny, and shouldn't determine our roles in the world.

"Sorry this offends you. I'm entitled to my opinion. In my opinion, if you get pregnant and have a baby, you're not a man, even if you call yourself a man."

That's all fine well and good for you, but how is it your place to apply your concept of gender identification to another person who has clearly articulated their own opinion about their own body? You're more than entitled to your own opinions but when it extends to disrespecting both the choices and identity of others, you're stepping into the territory of prejudice.

We live in a patriarchy, so we determine whether a person belongs to one of two genders. If you're not one, by default you must be the other.

Stretch this out: Why only two genders? Why not room for more than just "male" or "female"? Why insist on trying to fit a person into one of two pigeonholes?

If we were a society that does not shame people for failing to fit into one of two proscribed genders, upon whose definitions and determinants we cannot agree, we would celebrate and possibly even envy those whose bio/psycho/ emotional makeup encompasses more than one narrow set of gender traits.

Instead, we get hung up arguing over whether someone is a "man" or a "woman," because we can't agree on the definition.

Why try to make everyone fit into the "male" or "female" category, when clearly, human beings are not always so cut-and-dried?

Thanks for the update!! Here is my message sent to Morning Joe.
****

Was it really necessary to shout "disgusting" over and over while discussing the pregnant man? Frankly, I'd expect more elevated discussion in a middle school lunchroom.

At one point, you edited the Oprah segment to insinuate that this child is some byproduct of a vet visit and will be half-human/half parrot.

Shame on you. You owe that couple an apology.

Hattie you are the one saying that if this person is pregnant then they cannot be a man so they have to be a woman (which you designated him as by using the pronoun "she" when saying "but if this person is pregnant, she is not a man"). You are perpetuating the very thing you are seemingly arguing against...

uh, tinfoil hattie, then why were you arguing that he must be a woman while pregnant?

What is disgusting about Mr Beatie? What is disgusting about pregnancy in general that someone would make comments like this. I think it's beautiful and inspirational that he has gone ahead and done something outside the mainstream, all for the good of his family. His daughter will always know she was very much wanted by both her parents, and what is disgusting about that?

What I find most interesting about this couple is the media's reaction towards pushing the pregnant father towards a gender identity. In these comments, the same tendency is shown by tinfoilhattie, whose own definitions of gender apparently extend to the whole world in their mind. I think most of us with an even slightly nuanced understanding of gender and sexuality issues/theory can agree that one's self-identification is more valid than the projections of society. The pregnant man in this story is trying to live a fulfilliing and meaningful life without bowing to the pressures of gender conformation. The question is only whether our bodies must dictate our roles and behaviors as prescribed by the most dominant class in the sex-caste society. Any thinking feminist must, inherently, support all queer and transgender struggles if we are to have integrity. The struggles are inseperable.
It makes me proud of our queer and feminist communities, and excited for the future when (i hope) the spaces between poles of our gender dichotomy can be inhabited, lovingly and without persecution.
More power to him.

This reminds me of a movie that (ironically enough) I haven't seen yet (but it's on my netflix queue!) -- it's called "Southern Comfort" where a trans man is living with terminal cancer of the ovaries.

I've seen the preview, where he says something like, "ironically enough, the last part of me that's female is what's killing me."

Just because this man had ovaries and ovarian cancer didn't make him a man.

This whole discussion of "what is this person" is totally useless IMO.

The fact is we have a human being who's about to bring a child into the world and care for the child and love it.

If Thomas feels male or female is of no matter to me.

I have to say that I've been losing respect for Brzezinski since she went along with the whole "Obama bowls like a girl!" thing. This display, however, has totally turned me off her. Way to act like a third grader.

I just sent a little note:

"By your comments on the segment called, "Mr. Mom", I'm to assume that you're opposed to artificial insemination as a method of becoming pregnant. Specifically, the Oprah clips you used discussed only the use of a sterilized syringe and care of the sperm. Is it simply that you prefer one medical procedure over another, or is vaginal intercourse the only legitimate way for someone to get pregnant?

If you have a problem with this man's gender identity, then, by all means, take issue with it, and argue that it's impossible for someone to feel like a man when pregnant. (I assume you know from experience?) There is no need, however, to simply proclaim your disgust at what was calmly and rationally explained to be a normal medical procedure.

I'd also like to take issue with your conflation of sperm donation and fatherhood, but perhaps another day."

I'm afraid that we're all trapped in a horrible logical fallacy. Just because we've never known someone who identifies as a man while pregnant doesn't mean one doesn't exist. Pure, infallible proof exists only in mathematics, and all of the scientific research in the world can't account for absolutely everyone and everything. Is someone who falls outside the normal curve necessarily disgusting or evil? I don't think so. Maybe these people do.

FYI, there is a facebook group now against Beatie. The group description is written in a female voice, and is interesting because of it seems that the writer is mad that Beatie is treading on her role as a woman to reproduce... I noticed that some of those joining the group were also a part of feminist groups on facebook. I just think it's sad that some of us are trying to break down gender roles...but only as it benefits US.
I say rock on Thomas Beatie. If nothing else, this story is showing us who in the media are choosing to act immature and juvenille, and extremely uneducated ("Pregnant Dude on Oprah"---how creative and adorable you are!)

This is getting complicated.

For the ease of writing, I will ferefer to tinfoilhattie as "her", its just easier this way for me, I'm not with the times I guess. If hattie is actually a male, or identifies as such, my apologies.

Firstly, tinfoilhattie, IMO, is not contradicting her own statement.

When hattie identified a human as being female for its ability to bear children, you all ripped on her for somehow forcing her own limited opinions onto those who don't fit in.

She then proceeded on a mental exercise asking as to why we even limit ourselves to only 2 genders? Somehow this is seen by y'all as a contradiction of sorts.

What I keep failing to understand in all discussions of this sort this: why is it when somebody dares to have a remotely traditional view on gender, he / she is ganged up on and is basically presented as a tyrant.

This issue bothers me a lot, I've been reading this site for months but this finally drove me to get an account.

People who said I contradicted myself are right. I shouldn't have said "she" is a "woman." I did contradict myself, and I was wrong.

I am trying to muddle through this too, like everyone else. It's new, and it goes against our patriarchal paradigms, and I'm as caught up in them as anyone else. So I'm sorry for offending.

We definitely need to open our definitions of gender, if "gender" is even a concept that can exist beyond male and female.

It is, however, my opinion that calling a person who is pregnant a "man" is inaccurate. I don't think that's prejudiced. I think calling a pregnant person a "man" is limiting.

i think the uproar regarding this issue belies a lot of anxiety about how we classify ourselves and others, especially in regards to gender. i think the concept of a "pregnant transman" really challenges a lot of gender norms and beliefs that comprise our daily existence and are therefore taken for granted. i think we feel socially dislocated if we can't immediately categorize those we encounter, and the revulsion being expressed right now, as well as the debate about what it means to be a "man" or a "woman," are merely masks for fear.

It is, however, my opinion that calling a person who is pregnant a "man" is inaccurate. I don't think that's prejudiced. I think calling a pregnant person a "man" is limiting.

I think, tinfoil hattie, what a lot of people who have responded to your comments are saying is that it's not about what you or I think is limiting or right--it's about what each of us choose to call ourselves. This man has clearly said in many different contexts that being pregnant has not challenged his sense of himself as a man, and he continues to identify as a man. His voice is the one that needs to be heard and honored here, not ours, not the media's.

I only watched a small clip of the ultrasound on Oprah, and I'll admit I was surprised that they had found out the sex of the baby, and referred to it as "she" numerous times.

I think this issue is really interesting and I understand why many people struggle with the concept of a pregnant man.

Has anyone seen the movie "Transparent"?
(transparentthemovie.com)
I'm going to try and track it down if I can. I'm not quite clear from the synopsis whether the 19 transmen in the film gave birth and then transitioned or vice versa? Anyways, let me know if you've seen it and what you thought.

If I was a gay man, I *might* be a little miffed by this because:
1. A woman legally became a man and could therefore legally marry "her" female partner.
2. Because the man retained female reproductuve sex organs, he is now pregnant with a baby.

Talk about a loophole! Kudos!

I NEVER watch TV news because I can't stand to hear the anchors pass really lowest-common denominator-type judgements on every single story. Who cares what you think! Shut up and let me see for myself.

I read this story in the Advocate. I couldn't get through the TV news thing. Those anchors are so annoying.

'This man has clearly said in many different contexts that being pregnant has not challenged his sense of himself as a man, and he continues to identify as a man"

As such, why did he choose to perform chest reconstruction surgery to make himself appear more like a man?

If bearing a child isn't a detractor from him feeling a man, why is having breasts?

If I was a gay man, I *might* be a little miffed by this because:
1. A woman legally became a man and could therefore legally marry "her" female partner.
2. Because the man retained female reproductuve sex organs, he is now pregnant with a baby.

Talk about a loophole! Kudos!

I NEVER watch TV news because I can't stand to hear the anchors pass really lowest-common denominator-type judgements on every single story. Who cares what you think! Shut up and let me see for myself.

I read this story in the Advocate. I couldn't get through the TV news thing. Those anchors are so annoying.

a propos the facebook group...i wouldn't be too concerned about the feminists joining it (yet). as i know, its a pretty common practice on facebook to join groups opposite of what you believe in to argue/discuss in the forums with those who DO actually believe in it. so don't lose hope yet

GoodGolly!: "If I was a gay man, I *might* be a little miffed by this because:
1. A woman legally became a man and could therefore legally marry "her" female partner.
2. Because the man retained female reproductuve sex organs, he is now pregnant with a baby.

Talk about a loophole!"

Of course any gay men who are "miffed" are free to exercise their right to utilize this "loophole" by getting top surgery and living as a woman so they can legally marry their male partner. And, like Beatie, they would still be able to have biological children.

This is the e-mail I sent them:

I was absolutely disgusted by your comments on Thomas Beatie. He and his wife are doing what makes them happy, and their decision to have a biological child should never be subject to ridicule. Particularly by oversized fratboys who were lucky enough to score their own TV show. How about instead of giggling at the "freak," you congratulate him for actually doing what it takes to make himself happy in the wake of idiot "news" anchors who like to suggest that the father is a parrot, and that this couple will somehow be unable to raise this child because they both happen to have two X chromosomes. I would bet the rest of my college tuition on the fact that these parents are more fit to raise their child than you would ever be given the fact that you will surely raise your kids to believe the same intollerant drivel you spout so freely.

And that facebook group makes me sick.

This is the e-mail I sent them:

I was absolutely disgusted by your comments on Thomas Beatie. He and his wife are doing what makes them happy, and their decision to have a biological child should never be subject to ridicule. Particularly by oversized fratboys who were lucky enough to score their own TV show. How about instead of giggling at the "freak," you congratulate him for actually doing what it takes to make himself happy in the wake of idiot "news" anchors who like to suggest that the father is a parrot, and that this couple will somehow be unable to raise this child because they both happen to have two X chromosomes. I would bet the rest of my college tuition on the fact that these parents are more fit to raise their child than you would ever be given the fact that you will surely raise your kids to believe the same intollerant drivel you spout so freely.

And that facebook group makes me sick. However, it only has 27 members, wheras the group in support of the couple has 108 members (I'm the newest one).

GoodGolly!: "If I was a gay man, I *might* be a little miffed by this because:
1. A woman legally became a man and could therefore legally marry "her" female partner.
2. Because the man retained female reproductuve sex organs, he is now pregnant with a baby.

Talk about a loophole!"

Of course any gay men who are "miffed" are free to exercise their right to utilize this "loophole" by getting top surgery and living as a woman so they can legally marry their male partner. And, like Beatie, they would still be able to have biological children.

I'm reminded of how some conservatives out there seem to think stuff like "How do you decide you want equal employment opportunities with men and then decide, 'Well, except for this one part where my health insurance covers my OB/GYN care'?"

Jenikov, why is it your business to decide whether or not one's identified gender is valid or not? Mr. Beatie is a man. He was always a man, even when he had a female body. He transitioned most of his body to better match his self-identified gender. He did not transition his reproductive system, for his own personal reasons that are none of our business. This ended up being a good thing for he and his wife, as she is not able to bear children, due to a life threatening illness. He is now able to do what no other husband has been able to do for his wife before and take on the burden of pregnancy and childbirth. He continues to be a man, because he was never not a man. You're snide remarks and clear discomfort with that as a concept doesn't change it. The reason people are upset with TinfoilHattie, is because TH is being disrespectful to what Mr. Beatie's self-identification is, which is just exactly what transphobic people do. You do not get to decide whether or not Mr. Beatie is a man. He does. He has. He is. Get over it.

"He was always a man, even when he had a female body."

Nitpick: except when he was a boy, right? I heard that most if not all transpeople realize they're trans very early in life.

I was completely disgusted not by the story of the pregnant transman (�Mr. Mom�, 4/4/08), but by your ignorant, bigoted, and offensive coverage of that story. I thought I was watching a group of junior high school students as you and your colleagues expressed such sophisticated opinions as “I’m going to be sick,� “we don’t want the facts,� and “I’m closing my eyes.�

As I sit here with my infant daughter in my arms, I am angered and saddened that you chose to heap your abuse upon a loving couple who have decided to have a child together. I am ashamed that I ever respected Mika Brzezinski back when I was growing up in Hartford, CT. Thank you, Ms. Brzezinski and co., for showing me how unworthy of that respect you are.

My letter to the Morning Joe show:

I was completely disgusted not by the story of the pregnant transman (�Mr. Mom�, 4/4/08), but by your ignorant, bigoted, and offensive coverage of that story. I thought I was watching a group of junior high school students as you and your colleagues expressed such sophisticated opinions as “I’m going to be sick,� “we don’t want the facts,� and “I’m closing my eyes.�

As I sit here with my infant daughter in my arms, I am angered and saddened that you chose to heap your abuse upon a loving couple who have decided to have a child together. I am ashamed that I ever respected Mika Brzezinski back when I was growing up in Hartford, CT. Thank you, Ms. Brzezinski and co., for showing me how unworthy of that respect you are.

Um, yah. Double. Oops.

I don't see how any of TH's comments were disrespectful. Differing opinion about a person's self perception is not disrespect. Furthermore, TH didn't come out and say anything pro or against, she merely stated that as a male, a human being can give birth. Therefore it must be the other gender - female. Mr. Beatie chooses to think of himself as a man, that's a-ok. How was TH, then, disrespectful?

That's absolutely my issue here.

I understand well that some people identify themselves of being different gender than they are biologically. I understand that.

I also understand that this is a very very unique scenario and does shake a lot of our definitions of gender - what it is, and what it isn't.

GoodGolly, thanks for bringing up an angle I think a lot of us are missing. I know, of course, this couple didn't go through elaborate medical procedures as a "loophole" to marriage, but I think this is really interesting. It sheds a whole new light on the gay marriage controversy that one needs only to be able to legally register as the opposite sex to legitimize it.

And I'm wondering now what everyone thinks the perception of this might be by the less liberal-minded. My boyfriend, who is wonderful except for the close-mindedness, doesn't really think to highly of gay men and most things "nontraditional." But he admitted to me that he has a lot of respect for someone like Thomas Beattie who are willing to make such a serious commit and change their entire life to fit how they identify.

So thoughts: will this example of loving couple "normalize" transgendered folks in society before gay couples get that same treatment?

"Of course any gay men who are 'miffed' are free to exercise their right to utilize this "loophole" by getting top surgery and living as a woman so they can legally marry their male partner."

I appreciate your (justified) sarcasm here, rhowan, but your quip misrepresents the law in most states. The extent of surgical intervention required in order to have one's gender transition legally recognized (for marriage or other purposes) varies and is often unclear from state to state. In almost every state, a trans woman needs to have bottom surgery to get legal recognition. The situation is somewhat different for trans men, but I believe that in most states Mr. Beatie would not have recognized as a man legally and therefore would have been unable to marry his wife. And in a handful of states transition is still never legally recognized. This doesn't affect your point - that recognition of transition is certainly not a 'loophole' gay people are going to exploit - but folks environment is far from friendly for gender transition.

Edit: Furthermore, TH didn't come out and say anything pro or against, she merely stated that as a male, a human being can't give birth

"Of course any gay men who are 'miffed' are free to exercise their right to utilize this "loophole" by getting top surgery and living as a woman so they can legally marry their male partner."

I appreciate your (justified) sarcasm here, rhowan, but your quip misrepresents the law in most states. The extent of surgical intervention required in order to have one's gender transition legally recognized (for marriage or other purposes) varies and is often unclear from state to state. In almost every state, a trans woman needs to have bottom surgery to get legal recognition. The situation is somewhat different for trans men, but I believe that in most states Mr. Beatie would not have recognized as a man legally and therefore would have been unable to marry his wife. And in a handful of states transition is still never legally recognized. This doesn't affect your point - that recognition of transition is certainly not a 'loophole' gay people are going to exploit - but folks environment is far from friendly for gender transition.

Appalling! Though I'm not exactly pro-trans (I find it sexist to change genders) I found this to be openly degrading, and offensive. This also helps to reveal how disrespected pregnancy is openly treated with in this country.

GoodGolly, thanks for bringing up an angle I think a lot of us are missing. I know, of course, this couple didn't go through elaborate medical procedures as a "loophole" to marriage, but I think this is really interesting. It sheds a whole new light on the gay marriage controversy that one needs only to be able to legally register as the opposite sex to legitimize it.

And I'm wondering now what everyone thinks the perception of this might be by the less liberal-minded. My boyfriend, who is wonderful except for the close-mindedness, doesn't really think to highly of gay men and most things "nontraditional." But he admitted to me that he has a lot of respect for someone like Thomas Beattie who are willing to make such a serious commit and change their entire life to fit how they identify.

So thoughts: will this example of loving couple "normalize" transgendered folks in society before gay couples get that same treatment?

Jenikov, I can't figure out if you're arguing in good faith here or not. You don't have to come out and say something blatantly negative for it to be disrespectful. If I am a woman, but have no uterus, and someone tells me, "No disrespect, but you have to have a uterus to be a woman, and since you don't, you must be a man." That's disrespectful. It just is. I say I am a woman, and you deny the validity of my womanhood. Dis.Re.Spect.Ful. How anyone can claim that it isn't is utterly beyond me, save for the possibility of their just covering themselves. In fact, I might have to go get my transphobia bingo card and see how many squares have been covered already on this thread.

she merely stated that as a male, a human being can't give birth

And yet in this situation, Mr. Beattie is male, and is giving birth. So tinfoil hattie's statement doesn't represent the full range of human experience. It erases the very real experience of Mr. Beattie and his wife, which is why it's disrespectful.

"If bearing a child isn't a detractor from him feeling a man, why is having breasts?"

I find that comment interesting because it reveals to me at least, a valid suspicion that transgender is a slight mental disorder. How is it someone can feel like the other gender if one isnt that gender? Isnt that simply based on gender stereotypes?

Personally I'm not willing to accept a former man (who no doubt engaged in misogynistic behaviors)as a woman simply because he took hormones.It takes alot more than hormones to make a woman - and I dont think any former man can ever be good enough to be a woman or is ever deserving of being accepted among women. Lets not forget that transwomen can still be rapists (or former rapists who never got prosecuted, like so many men in this country) and exploit womens oppressive circumstances in this country just as much as any testes man. I dont think any transwoman can ever leave her 'maleness' (that which is associated with misogyny) behind.

Meanwhile, I can actually understand stuff like "the gender that produces the larger gamete is the female one" when trying to figure out whether an organism is male, female, both, or neither...if the organism *can't* tell you.

For example, a lizard who's laid eggs its entire adult life may have felt male and related more to its male peers ever since hatching, but I wouldn't blame a human observer for not knowing this and mistakenly thinking that lizard is female.

However, most people *are* able to say what gender they are (although they may not be free to do so safely). Mr. Beatie says he's male, so if one cares which gender he is then why resort to his reproductive system instead of accepting his statement?

I would simply define a female as a person with two (2) copies of the X chromosome as opposed to the male which carries only one (1) X and one (1) smaller Y chromosome.

Identification aside, this seems simple enough to me.

purdueattorney: so how do you classify someone with Klinefelter's syndrome (who has two Xs and one Y), or any number of other combinations?

What about someone with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome? Such a person has an XY karyotype, but does not react to androgen, and thus has a completely female outward appearance, but testes instead of ovaries and a uterus. Woman with CAIS rarely find out about their condition before they're seventeen (after they go to the doctor because they haven't menstrated yet).

And yes, there are men out there, with testes and a penis, who have karyotype 46 XX. It's a very rare condition, caused by a gene mutation/deletion, but it does happen.

Natural loves to resist our simple models in the most beautiful ways.

Some of you people are ridiculous. You're not PRO-TRANS because you think it's sexist to change genders?

What about XY people with 5-alpha-reductase deficiency (who are born with female secondary sexual characteristics, but develop into males after the surge of testosterone in puberty)?

Or what about XY individuals with complete androgen insensitivity who appear as females their ENTIRE lives, but just happen to be infertile because of their lack of ovaries, etc.

Even biologically speaking, there are a whole RANGE of other chromosomal abnormalities that can affect whether you appear male or female.

So please let's not define ourselves by our x or y chromosomes. We are all human beings with hearts and brains and all we ask is that we be treated equally.

If someone wants to call themselves male or female that is THEIR business.

The fact is, that there are many medical conditions which frankly boggle the minds of DOCTORS when it comes to classifying patients into traditional genders.

SO it's NOT cut and dry, it will never BE cut and dry, and if you think it is, look up those disorders, and EDUCATE yourselves.

If you want, you can generalize and say that giving birth makes you female, and you cannot be male, fine, do that.

Just know that you are marginalizing thousands of people when you do that--living, breathing people who don't fit into your narrow definitions.

I don't understand why this is so complicated for some folks. The key is gender expression: that is, one's gender related appearance and behaviors. If someone expresses a predominately male gender, like Mr. Beattie, use male pronouns. If someone expresses a predominately female gender, like his wife, use female pronouns. If someone's gender expression is mixed, which could be for any number of reasons, make a guess. If that person corrects you, apologize and change pronouns. Most of all, be polite. You can never go wrong with being polite.

GopherII: "I dont think any former man can ever be good enough to be a woman or is ever deserving of being accepted among women."

That seems a bit... harsh.

(Also, thanks dykelawyer for your explanation of the inconsistencies in American gender transition laws.)

I'm not saying that there are not borderline cases. The very fact that DRC and spaceinjamonkey recognize that these are syndromes and disorders simply emphasizes that we are talking about special cases.

I am trying to set forth the necessary and sufficient conditions for a person to be "male" and "female". I am not saying that every one person will fall into either/or one of these categories, but it does capture almost all individuals.

I would say that my having the XY chromosome, combined perhaps with my lack of a uterus, means I am a male. To paraphrase John Cleese from Life of Brian - where is the fetus going to gestate - in a box?

Perception does not override biology here. The fact that I may see myself as different from my gender does not make it so. I'd love to identify as any host of other individuals with characteristics I don't possess, but that doesn't mean I can have those traits no matter how hard I wish.

I am simply stating that males (i.e. those with an XY chromosome) cannot have children. I have yet to see a case otherwise.

Far be it from me to tell this couple how to have a child, and how they express their gender, but what I am saying is that this is not a pregnant male. Recognizing this biological fact does not mean that their political and individual rights should not be respected.

GopherII:
I see a parallel "a man can never be good enough to be a woman" and "a woman can't do 'man's work' and should, thus stay in the kitchen"

Also, there is a listing for "gender identity disorder" in the DSM. However, Homosexuality also used to be listed. The problem with listing such things as a "disease" is that it points to the idea that there is a "cure" and that these people should be cured because they are abnormal and hurtful to society. Calling it a disease will only lead to more shaming of transgenders, which really will lead to mental illness.

MLEmac has a good point. It's risky to define something as a psychological disorder unless it clearly is harmful to either the individual or to others (i.e depression, sociopathic tendencies). Something such as gender association does not seem to fit into this criteria. Also, the anchors don't sound juvenile to me, they sound infantile.

Actually, purdueattorney, scientists HAVE managed to transplant an embryo into the peritoneal cavity of a male monkey (macaque, I think) and had the fetus removed after considerable growth, so YES males can GROW babies but it is dangerous and does not happen through intercourse.

Anyway, we are talking about two different notions of gender: purely biological simplification and societal.

SECONDARY sexual characteristics, not primary, are what our culture uses to define maleness and femaleness, so even by our culture's standards, your definition of maleness would be lacking.

By this definition, yes, MALES can become naturally pregnant if they HAPPEN to have a womb and ovaries, if they identify as males in terms of their secondary sexual characteristics.

And besides, if that is your definition of a male, what is your definition of a female? Someone who CAN in theory have kids? The macaque experiment has also shown that EVERYONE in theory can incubate children. And if you mean naturally through intercourse, then MANY MANY women do not fall into that definition. If you mean someone that was born with ovaries...

The point is, YES, you can make generalizations in a lot of cases, but in cases like these, you should NOT bring those generalizations in.

He has ovaries. He has the secondary sexual characteristics of a male. He calls himself a male and not a female.

There is no need to pigeonhole people in a complicated situation like this. It's better to just let them speak for themselves, alongside the biological reality, and not let one's biological reality determine one's gender identity if a person is not comfortable with it for WHATEVER reason.

It's their choice, and it should be respected.

I wrote an email with the link provided... I don't have it anymore though. I basically just said, it wasn't their place to pass judgment on this man just because he wanted to have a child and had the bits to do it... and that transgendered people are people too.

I don't agree with GopherII because I think that man-hating is still sexism and gender equality is not the same as man-bashing. It's not sexist to change genders, in my opinion, because I've heard what people who changed genders have said about their reasons for the change, and none of those people (people I know personally) had reasons that were overtly (or even minimally) sexist.

For me, the story itself (not the awful news coverage) was very exciting. I wish that I knew what that guy was going through. That must be one of the craziest stories I've ever heard, and one of the most exciting.

Actually, purdueattorney, scientists HAVE managed to transplant an embryo into the peritoneal cavity of a male monkey (macaque, I think) and had the fetus removed after considerable growth, so YES males can GROW babies but it is dangerous and does not happen through intercourse.

Anyway, we are talking about two different notions of gender: purely biological simplification and societal.

SECONDARY sexual characteristics, not primary, are what our culture uses to define maleness and femaleness, so even by our culture's standards, your definition of maleness would be lacking.

By this definition, yes, MALES can become naturally pregnant if they HAPPEN to have a womb and ovaries, if they identify as males in terms of their secondary sexual characteristics.

And besides, if that is your definition of a male, what is your definition of a female? Someone who CAN in theory have kids? The macaque experiment has also shown that EVERYONE in theory can incubate children. And if you mean naturally through intercourse, then MANY MANY women do not fall into that definition. If you mean someone that was born with ovaries...

The point is, YES, you can make generalizations in a lot of cases, but in cases like these, you should NOT bring those generalizations in.

He has ovaries. He has the secondary sexual characteristics of a male. He calls himself a male and not a female.

There is no need to pigeonhole people in a complicated situation like this. It's better to just let them speak for themselves, alongside the biological reality, and not let one's biological reality determine one's gender identity if a person is not comfortable with it for WHATEVER reason.

It's their choice, and it should be respected.

To clarify the bit about changing genders not being sexist (I know my argument was a little wobbly)... I think it's just the opposite. Our society has split up the population into two camps of male and female... the females wear dresses, like pink, are "pretty", and the males wear pants, like blue and are "handsome." If one is not comfortable with the deck of cards society hands them (their role as a male or female) they should take every opportunity to change it in any way that they can, because the purpose of our lives is not to conform to society and do what other people tell us, it's to do what we feel is right for ourselves. Is it sexist not to feel comfortable in the role that society has handed you? I don't think so. I think just the opposite in fact. As for transwomen "not being good enough" to be women... well, that's just flagrantly sexist... it's plainly saying that women are better than men, instead of being equal.

"If someone expresses a predominately male gender, like Mr. Beattie, use male pronouns. If someone expresses a predominately female gender, like his wife, use female pronouns. If someone's gender expression is mixed, which could be for any number of reasons, make a guess. If that person corrects you, apologize and change pronouns."

Listen, apologize, and change prounouns. Don't just accuse them of oppressing your accent...

"Most of all, be polite. You can never go wrong with being polite."

Totally! That reminds me of how at school the bullies (whose native language was English) used male pronouns for me...and then when I came home from school Mom used male pronouns half the time for me (in English-language statements). No matter how many times over the years I reminded her that English has separate male and female pronouns and that it hurt to hear my mother talk about me the way bullies who hated me did, she still picked pronouns at random.

"I don't agree with GopherII because I think that man-hating is still sexism and gender equality is not the same as man-bashing."

Right on!

"It's not sexist to change genders, in my opinion, because I've heard what people who changed genders have said about their reasons for the change, and none of those people (people I know personally) had reasons that were overtly (or even minimally) sexist."

Yeah, it's like the way my reasons for wanting to not change gender aren't sexist.

"Some of you people are ridiculous. You're not PRO-TRANS because you think it's sexist to change genders?

What about XY people with 5-alpha-reductase deficiency (who are born with female secondary sexual characteristics, but develop into males after the surge of testosterone in puberty)?

Or what about XY individuals with complete androgen insensitivity who appear as females their ENTIRE lives, but just happen to be infertile because of their lack of ovaries, etc."

spaceninjamonkey,
As one of those ridiculous people who believe its sexist to be transgender all of the examples you gave were medical conditions. Those people didnt choose to change genders (whatever that means) but went along with what biology gave them. They didnt "feel" one way or the other, but conformed to what their outer appearance directed for them.

"Don't understand why this is so complicated for some folks. The key is gender expression: that is, one's gender related appearance and behaviors. If someone expresses a predominately male gender, like Mr. Beattie, use male pronouns. If someone expresses a predominately female gender, like his wife, use female pronouns."

DRC,
Isnt that just going according to gender stereotypes? If I like cooking I'm a female, if I love to watch rugby I'm male? Thats an old method for defining gender expression, which is based on outdated gender stereotypes and gender roles.

"GopherII: "I dont think any former man can ever be good enough to be a woman or is ever deserving of being accepted among women."

That seems a bit... harsh."

Rhowan,
I'm simply being a realist. Just because youre transgender doesnt mean you cant rape someone. Personally I feel a bit unsafe when I think about going to the Michigan Womyns Festival now that they took away the "female born," requirement. Why not just be a male born guy, come to the 'Womyns' festival and claim to be a woman. Who says a woman cant have a dick - or a full beard?

"Also, there is a listing for "gender identity disorder" in the DSM. However, Homosexuality also used to be listed."

Which is sad that homosexuality ever used to be listed. However, I have no clue what they mean by 'feeling' like the other gender. I have read some transgender autobiographys and havent had that question answered. In fact, one of the autobiographys I read which documented a woman transforming into a man showed the author swapping sexist remarks with the men all in an effort to be seen as male. I'm supposed to like someone who does that? S/he even wrote that when she was a female she wouldve been appalled at the comments - but (as she admitted)she did it to conform to her gender identity to be seen as a male. The book was, "Just Add Hormones: An Insiders Guide to the Transexual Experience" by Matt Kailey.

"but (as she admitted)she did it to conform to her gender identity to be seen as a male." (GopherII)
This seems to be more indicative of the problems we have with culturally defined genders, rather than something wrong with transgendered people. Also, in regards to having no clue what they mean by feeling like the other gender, some people (including myself) have no clue how people could like ketchup, and yet that doesn't mean that ketchup-lovers have a mental disorder.

GopherIIspaceninjamonkey,
As one of those ridiculous people who believe its sexist to be transgender all of the examples you gave were medical conditions. Those people didnt choose to change genders (whatever that means) but went along with what biology gave them. They didnt "feel" one way or the other, but conformed to what their outer appearance directed for them.

Actually, in 5-alpha-reductase deficiency, MANY men choose to go back to being women because that's what they were comfortable with. MANY other men choose to continue on as being men. So they do FEEL one way or another.

The point is, you don't know what's going on in their minds. So don't JUDGE if it isn't hurting you.

Even though every man has the physical potential to be a rapist, every woman AND man has the potential to be complete psychopathic assholes. And personally, I'm more afraid of what's in someone's heart than the presence or absence of a penis, thank you very much.

GopherII

A saying I've always liked is
"Sex is what's between your legs; gender is what's between your ears."

Pretty much the idea is that regardless of what your sex organs are, or what your chromosomes are, your gender identity is seperate from that.

So yeah, unless you're collecting DNA samples from everyone you see or peeking in their underwear, as far as you are concerned their gender is what they say it is. The only difference for Mr. Beatie is that he provided "proof" that his chromosomes are not XY. However, I certainly do not believe that doing this gives us the right to take away his man card or anything. His gender identity is his business and decided that you disagree is the same as me telling you that your religion or lack thereof is wrong and I "know" that you are actually a Quaker like myself.

Also, of course you have no clue what it feels like to think you should have been the other gender, unless you've experienced it, you wouldn't know. I can't imagine what that would feel like, but that doesn't mean I don't believe the feeling exists. And just because one transgender man started making sexist comments after becoming a man, does not mean that they are all guilty of it.

"Personally I feel a bit unsafe when I think about going to the Michigan Womyns Festival now that they took away the 'female born,' requirement."

That reminds me of this:

http://www.metafilter.com/70352/The-Patriarchy-like-the-Hotel-California#2063425

"'Being in this space which celebrates women and in which there is *no* chance of sexual assault by a man was liberating.'

"this seems like a somewhat specious argument, considering the fact that the festival organizers are allowing in ftm transmen. It seems to me that, from a biological/hormonal perspective, you should be more concerned about a T-taking transman engaging in the sort of stereotypical male aggressive/sexual assault type behavior, than the corresponding estrogen-taking mtf transwoman.

"I agree with the trans camp label of 'trans misogyny,' and it almost seems like the organizers are afraid that agents of the Patriarchy are going to put on dresses and attempt to subvert the festival from within. This may even be a legitimate criticism, up until the point where you allow transmen in, as there can very little physical difference between a well-passing ftm and a biological male."

Then there was also this:

http://www.metafilter.com/70352/The-Patriarchy-like-the-Hotel-California#2063419

"I went to MichFest about ten years ago. The trans-woman exclusion policy really bothered me, especially as there were so many trans-men..."

"Even though every man has the physical potential to be a rapist, every woman AND man has the potential to be complete psychopathic assholes. And personally, I'm more afraid of what's in someone's heart than the presence or absence of a penis, thank you very much."

Exactly!

DRC,
Isnt that just going according to gender stereotypes? If I like cooking I'm a female, if I love to watch rugby I'm male? Thats an old method for defining gender expression, which is based on outdated gender stereotypes and gender roles.

No, GopherII, gender expression goes quite a bit farther than stereotypes, although they do play a role. The legal definition that states (and the aborted gender-inclusive federal employment non-discrimination act) use for gender expression is almost always a variant of the one I stated: gender-related appearance and behaviors. I don't know about more theoretical or academic definitions, but this is the one that is usually used for practical purposes.

Notice that appearance plays a major role here, and because of that, secondary sex characteristics play a major role in determining one's predominate gender expression. While there are stereotypes about secondary sex characteristics that aren't always true, for the most part, this part of appearance goes well beyond outdated gender stereotypes.

As for your two examples, I very much doubt that cooking or liking rugby would do much, if anything, to one's predominate gender expression. Virtually everyone who use female pronouns to refer to a woman who likes rugby, even though liking rugby is supposedly stereotypically male. The important thing here is the sum total of one's gender-related appearance and behavior, and how these characteristics together usually (but not always) come together to form either a predominately male gender expression, or a predominately female one. Its this predominately male or female gender expression (or the lack thereof) that determines gender for the purpose of social interactions.

Wow, GopherII, tinfoil hattie, and Jenikov, congratulations. You've officially made me want to throw up.

Remember how now we all look back and criticize the second wave for being racist and classist?

What do you think we're going to be looking back and saying about feminism today in fifty years? That we are transphobic and that we seriously fucked up. Because of PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

I find your comments even more offensive than MSNBC's. Why? Because I expect that shit from mainstream media. I do NOT expect it from people I should be able to trust and feel safe around, i.e. OTHER FEMINISTS. Reading that was like being stabbed in the back. Read some Judith Butler. For an even more nuanced understanding, one that does account for the significance of what you seem to think is so cut and dried (biology/science) read some Anne Fausto-Sterling. And for now? Shut your mouth unless you are talking about your own gender identity. No one, NO ONE has the right to tell someone they are not "what" they say they are just because one's own definition of gender doesn't match theirs. By most patriarchal definitions of "woman," I'm obviously NOT one. I have short hair and and education and I own shoes and am nulliparous. But I identify as a cisgendered WOMAN, and they cannot take that away from me. You cannot take his gender away from him just because you are ignorant.

And to vent on another topic--I clearly picked the wrong university. I didn't know I wanted to study women's studies when I came to my school, and now I'm stuck with people like the professor for my graduate-level seminar who don't know the difference between the a lesbian couple and a couple that is a cisgendered woman and a transman. We were discussing this in my seminar last week, and after the student who brought up the discussion had finished explaining it, my professor said, "Well, I think an interesting debate we can get out of this story is the issue of whether or not lesbian and gay couples should be allowed to have children." Um, HELLO!? This is a heterosexual couple! The news doesn't think gay people having children is sensational anymore! The only REASON this is a big deal is that a transman in pregnant. This discussion could have been a way to critique the way transpeople are represented in the media, to discuss transphobia, to talk about whether or not coverage like this is helpful in general. But, no, my professor went to "How do we feel about the gays having kids, class?" Fucking disgusting.

If anyone on this thread feels genuinely confused about definitions and trans issues, etc., and is interested in learning more, I'd recommend checking out this thread on Feministe, which is a "trans 101" post for people to ask any and all questions. I found it quite helpful last year when I was learning about a lot of this.

Also can't recommend enough Julia Serano's Whipping Girl. Reading that was my "aha!" moment for understanding how to think about these issues from a trans perspective.

To me, the important thing to remember in all of these situations is that it should be in the power of the individual people to define themselves. We have no right to tell people their own self-perceptions are wrong (we wouldn't want others to challenge us on our gender/sex identity and orientation, would we?). That's the foundational act of respect. And all the rest of it is really none of our business, unless we're invited to think about it by the people whose lives are directly impacted.

I don't see how any of TH's comments were disrespectful. Differing opinion about a person's self perception is not disrespect. Furthermore, T