Susan's Place Transgender Resources

News and Events => Opinions & Editorials => Topic started by: SandraJane on February 26, 2012, 11:14:24 AM

Title: NZ- Why I feel for the kids of ego-trippers
Post by: SandraJane on February 26, 2012, 11:14:24 AM
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.stuff.co.nz%2F1324352050%2F429%2F6169429.gif&hash=b9cdd084f410b675d0f341e1852dd20c8280da3e)


Why I feel for the kids of ego-trippers


ROSEMARY MCLEOD | Last updated 05:00 23/02/2012


http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/rosemary-mcleod/6464285/Why-I-feel-for-the-kids-of-ego-trippers (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/columnists/rosemary-mcleod/6464285/Why-I-feel-for-the-kids-of-ego-trippers)

https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,116135.new.html#new (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,116135.new.html#new)   Related article


OPINION: Maybe having kids is egotistical. You think you'll somehow live on forever through your amazingly gifted and beautiful descendants.

All I know is the whole thing was always a lottery, and despite the pill and the abortion rate, the matter of getting pregnant has become rather strange.

Britain's Beaumont Society, adviser to men who've changed sex, has announced an apparent miracle birth in England, where an apparent man has given birth to a real baby.

This news has been trumped by a report of another "man" who has given birth three times in - and this seems inevitable - California.
Title: Re: NZ- Why I feel for the kids of ego-trippers
Post by: spacial on February 26, 2012, 01:24:57 PM
If a man who also happens to be transgender, become pregnant, then suddenly claims he is the world's first pregnant man, that is clearly preposterous, silly and inaccurate. Though it must be noted that as far as I know, none of the men who have featured in these press claims has actually made this claim. Simply that they are transgender, that they have not had their female anatomy removed or affected and have become pregnant.

From what I know of the case in England, the man didn't seek publicity and it seems he was simply trying to avoid it by announcing it now. But again, I need some verification.

But these claims by the press are examples of the dregs of journalism.

However, this writer as sought to avoid that by claiming she is only trying to protect children.

In which way?

How are the children involved at any risk, of any kind, other than from the unwarranted press intrusion?