End Of Days: There's ANOTHER Pregnant Man Due To Give Birth In February
http://bossip.com/208664/end-of-days-theres-another-pregnant-man-due-to-give-birth-in-february/ (http://bossip.com/208664/end-of-days-theres-another-pregnant-man-due-to-give-birth-in-february/)
1/28/2010
Are we the only ones who have trouble understanding why a woman who wants to be a man seems crazy when they decide (using the female organs they supposedly didn't want in the first place) to do the most womanly thing possible???
Second is just the first to lose. No one cares anymore, its been done, everyone else moved on.
Just another bigot blog. Move along people, nothing to see here by small-mind bigots. Move along.
Quote
Are we the only ones who have trouble understanding why a woman who wants to be a man seems crazy when they decide (using the female organs they supposedly didn't want in the first place) to do the most womanly thing possible???
Yes. Yes you are. Now get over it.
But congratulations on appropriate use of pronouns throughout the piece. You now qualify as more progressive than the New York Times. Gold star for you!
What saddens me most about that blog isn't the blogger, truth be told. It's the comments. I'm not generally a violent person, but the more I read, the more I wanted to gather up the whole lot and bang their heads together >:(
If it is the end of days then the bigots should be happy! After all, they will be summoned to heaven by Jesus in Rapture, leaving all us heathens, non-believers, and wicked, wicked people to suffer the Great Tribulation.
Frankly, I can't wait for them to go...
-Sandy(...rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints...)
well the first pregnant man did it because he and his spouse wanted children, but she was unable to carry the child (i think it was something wrong with her womb lining). because he hadn't had his organs removed yet, he decided to carry the child to truly make it their own birth child, rather than use a surrogate mother.
without knowing the behind stories, you really can't be upset at them for using the organs they have. perhaps this one's spouse has HIV or something and the child would have been at risk of contracting it had he not stepped in to carry their child instead... :-\
Oh my gods, those comments... such hate and stupidity. My eyes still hurt from reading it.
I feel it's not my right to judge that man, especially since I understand his feelings. One of the most difficult things abut the entire process of transition is the fact that you will be unable too have kids afterward. if this man felt like this was something he needed to do; to have a child of his own, then isn't he free to do as he wishes?
Every person is different. It might seem weird to other people, but they cannot look inside his head.
Quote from: Alyssa M. on January 30, 2010, 12:06:52 AM
Yes. Yes you are. Now get over it.
Sadly they are not. So many haters commented on this topic, you'd be shocked. But they should get over it, shouldn't they?
Xx Pippin
p.s. my comment on the mentally challenged hate comments on that blog:
After reading these comments, I am once again reassured that people;
1. hate to think about things they do not understand, like, in this case, transsexuals
2. start yelling and screaming and trying to destroy the things that they don't know; I'm not sure if you people realise it, but these are two HUMAN BEINGS that you are calling all those nasty names. Not animals, or rocks, not just a photoshopped picture, but humans. As far as I am concerned, you should be ashamed to treat another human being like that. That is unjustifiable.
3. are not the smartest beings on this planet. If someone wants to make the choice to be a man, or a woman, is it impossible for you to accept that they are not 'sick and twisted' as you call them, but people who cannot live if they do not make the choice they make. Do you honestly think making the choice to become a man if you were born a woman is easy? Do you think it is a walk in the park?
Well, it is not. It is about the most difficult path a human being can walk. It takes years and years to complete everything, you spend months in hospitals, you are tested in every possible way. Psychologists can PROVE that the people who change the gender they were born with actually have the brain of their desired gender.
But it's so easy to hate, isn't it? It's easier to just judge someone or something without prior knowledge of the subject you are dealing with. It might actually be fun for some of you people. I think you like the feeling of power it gives you.
Think about it. Is shouting dumb things at innocent people really the justice you believe it to be?
And don't come screaming at my comment with things about god or religion. Everyone has the right to practice their own religion, and to behave as they deem fit according to that religion. Just like you all have the choice to believe in your own god. But no one has the right to force their beliefs and moral standards on someone else.
Accordingly, I am not trying to force anyone to agree with me. I am hoping that they will, but force them, I cannot. I am just showing you another point of view. Everyone makes their own choices in life, even you, the one who reads this. If every difficult choice you make would be criticised, you wouldn't be happy either. Please consider this before trying to make yourself feel good at the cost of someone else.
-Loki- (Yes, that's me, I use that nickname sometimes)
p.s. if you feel the need to bash me, go ahead. My point is made, and I will not abandon it. It will be like screaming at a wall. But if that is something you enjoy, then please feel free. I am sure my response will be accordingly.
[I am not sure if they posted this comment, seeing that that site is so full of haters that I fear my comment will be banned before they even read half of it. But I felt that it needed to be said. so yeah...
I must admit that I can't quite see the point of transitioning and then giving birth,It seems like a monumental waste of time.
Apart from concerns for the well being of the foetus, regarding hormones and similar, none of my business.
As far as the religious maniacs are concerned, shouldn't they be happy that a woman is doing what they think Mrs God made her for? I assume she is barefoot as well as pregers?
I noticed most of the commenters typed in caps lock lol ;)
omgawd thats odd D:
I wish this would stop being news. :-\ This is not a miracle by a long shot.
I think it is bad news. I don't understand why they would transition and give birth. They're saying they want to be a man and stuff and doing this. Of course people are going to judge, put us altogether and think we're fakes.
Seriously, no offence to anyone but this kind of thing aggravates me. You're either a man and play the role of a man or don't ever transition at all or give birth before you transition. I don't understand what transman are thinking.
@Accord: Agreed.
Sigh. I tend to agree with Accord. My viscera tend to shrivel up whenever I hear about a pregnant trans man who has already transitioned.
But...I read a lot of science fiction and get exposed to a lot of wild ideas about sex, gender, and all sorts of things. And I don't believe in enforcing a strict gender binary on anyone. And some cis men would jump at the chance to have a baby. And I think trans people should be free to do what they want without having some yahoo come along and tell him (or her) that the activity invalidates his (or her) gender.
I haven't read Thomas Beatie's book, so I don't know how he sees himself. He might be so secure in his identity that being pregnant doesn't shake his sense of self. Or maybe he's so pussywhipped that he is willing to roll over and play dead at his wife's smallest whim. Frankly, I don't care. I do, however, care about how his actions affect me.
Because of Beatie, some people might take me less seriously if they knew about me. But I suspect that they aren't the kind of people who would ever be on board anyway. Some people are always going to negatively judge trans people just because they're trans. I hate that. So I'm trying not to negatively judge guys like Beatie.
Sometimes it's a real struggle, though.
Quote from: accord03 on June 25, 2010, 06:55:48 AM
I think it is bad news. I don't understand why they would transition and give birth. They're saying they want to be a man and stuff and doing this. Of course people are going to judge, put us altogether and think we're fakes.
Seriously, no offence to anyone but this kind of thing aggravates me. You're either a man and play the role of a man or don't ever transition at all or give birth before you transition. I don't understand what transman are thinking.
I kind of feel the need to point out that it's the man's body. He can do as he likes.
Many of us are beyond feeling the need to pigeon-hole individuals into binary gender categorizations. It is unimportant as to how a person identifies. It is important that they need not fear being happy.
I think
you know, I really HATE that transmen are becoming more well known and more out to the public.
I don't want any of these transphobic "normals" to know about me. I wish they were still in the dark.
Quote from: Rebis on June 26, 2010, 06:06:30 PM
I kind of feel the need to point out that it's the man's body. He can do as he likes.
Many of us are beyond feeling the need to pigeon-hole individuals into binary gender categorizations. It is unimportant as to how a person identifies. It is important that they need not fear being happy.
I think
It is effecting every transman out there cause of FEW people who like to whatever he likes to do with his body and gender.
Quote from: accord03 on June 27, 2010, 04:36:17 AM
It is effecting every transman out there cause of FEW people who like to whatever he likes to do with his body and gender.
You realize transmen have been doing this before Thomas Beatie and it hasn't done anything to change our image? Thomas was just the first one to make it a public affair. I think that's the bigger issue, not what he does with his body. People shouldn't care about what you or he does with his body in the first place.
Some transmen like their vagina and some of them have no problem with giving birth. Not all FTMs feel the need to transition or have the same dysphorias as the rest. There are transmen who want a biological child so much that they don't mind being pregnant, we actually have one here who put off T because of this and are now carrying a child.
I personally wouldn't do it, but I don't see a problem with it, people have their reasons. What I do have a problem with are people who make it a public spectacle.
Yeah, I get what you mean and that frustrates me the most how they make it public then every transman get effected and catergorised as fakes but it would be better if these sort of things were limited cause didn't you change your gender for a reason? I personally don't like the whole idea of a man getting pregnant for whatever reason it was. If they wanted a bio child, they could of gave birth before or use other technology to get close as their own bio child instead of carrying it.
Quote from: accord03 on June 27, 2010, 05:54:32 AM
Yeah, I get what you mean and that frustrates me the most how they make it public then every transman get effected and catergorised as fakes but it would be better if these sort of things were limited cause didn't you change your gender for a reason? I personally don't like the whole idea of a man getting pregnant for whatever reason it was. If they wanted a bio child, they could of gave birth before or use other technology to get close as their own bio child instead of carrying it.
Well in the case of Thomas Beatie his wife was unable to have kids after having a hysto herself many years ago. Now I'm not quite sure the length of their relationship, but if they didn't want to adopt, Thomas would have had to get pregnant because he still had all his parts(aside from his chest.)
Quote from: Lachlann on June 27, 2010, 06:36:25 AM
Well in the case of Thomas Beatie his wife was unable to have kids after having a hysto herself many years ago. Now I'm not quite sure the length of their relationship, but if they didn't want to adopt, Thomas would have had to get pregnant because he still had all his parts(aside from his chest.)
IVF is still possible.
Quote from: accord03 on June 27, 2010, 07:38:08 AM
IVF is still possible.
Maybe, but still very expensive. More than what top surgery would cost.
In either case, Thomas is secure enough in his masculinity to carry a child in his womb. That's the way he chose to do it, and it doesn't make him much different than an FTM that decides to hold off on T to have a baby. Not everyone has to do it that way or even needs to have a kid, but it's still his choice and his body. It's not like he did it on a whim, he was 8 years into his transition and there were aspects of it he had to deeply consider.
If he was a man and wanted the kid. Money wouldn't matter. But that's just my opinion, I am against transman who wants to have a child. I don't understand it and for me, if you're a man you're a man and there is no excuse. Didn't he transition cause of his gender dysphoria then he goes and does something real female like.
He's a man who happens to have a womb so why not? It's only a female thing becuase most men don't have wombs.
Men doesn't have a womb cause they're men.
Your a man with female parts but that doesn't make you any less of a man.
It does and that's why we transition. If we believe we're not less of a man then why do go through transition and want to become more masculine.? Why don't transman have top surgery? Why can't they feel like a man with breasts?
I think money matters a lot in these situations. Having a kid naturally is a such a huge investment already, not everyone gets to chose when they have their kid and it can make finances difficult.
Why can't an ftm get pregnant and still be considered a man? Not everyone has the same kind of gender dysphoria as the rest. There are ftms who transition with no intention of getting bottom surgery because they're content with what they have down there. Their bottom dysphoria is very minimal. Some guys couldn't stand the thought of being pregnant(myself and you) and others wouldn't mind the sacrifice for the sake of having a child(Thomas.) And I think that's worth more than spending a lot of money. That doesn't mean people who go the IVF route are bad or any less respectable, but Thomas sacrificed a moment in his transition to be able to have a kid. I think that's an incredibly selfless act and shows how much he cares about having this kid that he would sacrifice his body.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3628860.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3628860.ece)
In his own words:
"Despite the fact that my belly is growing with a new life inside me, I am stable and confident being the man that I am." And that's all I'm going to say on this topic. You're free to think whatever you like but I'm just throwing this out there.
Post Merge: June 27, 2010, 08:16:32 AM
Quote from: accord03 on June 27, 2010, 08:03:32 AM
It does and that's why we transition. If we believe we're not less of a man then why do go through transition and want to become more masculine.? Why don't transman have top surgery? Why can't they feel like a man with breasts?
Some of them do feel like a man with breasts and are content with that.
I get you. Seriously, no no for me. Call me narrow minded or whatever but I don't like the whole concept of a man getting pregnant. He did a self-less act but think what the kid is going to be thinkin when he/she grows up. "Daddy" gave birth to me and most probably going to be teased.
There is more than bringing a baby to this world, getting on news and getting all the publicity. You got to think about the kids future ; whether he/she is going to get teased, what they may be feeling or thinking in 20 years time.
Quote from: accord03 on June 27, 2010, 08:18:24 AM
I get you. Seriously, no no for me. Call me narrow minded or whatever but I don't like the whole concept of a man getting pregnant. He did a self-less act but think what the kid is going to be thinkin when he/she grows up. "Daddy" gave birth to me and most probably going to be teased.
Then I guess people of color should have stopped having kids in this country a long time ago. And people in mixed marriages should probably remain childless. Gay people, too. And poor people. And very fat people and extremely skinny people and really tall or short people and people with disabilities...the thing is, kids will get teased about their parents. If that were a compelling reason not to have children, we wouldn't have 6.5 billion people on this planet. Or 6.6. Or whatever it's up to now.
BTW, Louise Brown seems to have turned out all right...
Quote from: accord03 on June 27, 2010, 04:36:17 AM
It is effecting every transman out there cause of FEW people who like to whatever he likes to do with his body and gender.
would you prefer every transman live the stereotype you desire them too? What you want is not necessarily what others want. So, who makes the important choices for everybody to live by?
Perhaps there ought to be a court into which individuals are called upon to be judged for their behavior?
I see absolutely no reason why any transman should be deprived of the joy of being a father, or any transwoman being deprived of being a mother for that matter. If it is by 'unconventional' means, such as using one's own reproductive organs, who cares? Besides adoption, there are very few options for individuals like us. There is incredible hypocrisy in the unsaid statement that society impresses upon gender. It is almost as if the impression is given that "Okay, we will watch you change into the other sex. But once you are the opposite sex you have to be the shining example of masculinity and femininity, and anything less than that means you were faking being trans all along." Additionally, I doubt this couple would want to go with these means in order to have a child if they they had a choice. To accord03, you probably realize that there is a diversity of people out there and furthermore a diversity of transpeople. Just because you don't see the point in something, doesn't mean it is ridiculous. Be a little more accepting of other people's lifestyles. As for the matter of the children growing up, I doubt this is going to cause much anxiety/teasing. Most children of gay couples don't even give a passing glimpse to their parents, let alone feel depression. Yes, there is a possibility the kid may be teased if someone finds out this "dark" secret. But what kid isn't teased? I think that as time passes, stories like these will become non-issues. Seriously, why should one care what happens between two consenting adults.
Quote from: accord03 on June 27, 2010, 04:36:17 AMIt is effecting every transman out there cause of FEW people who like to whatever he likes to do with his body and gender.
I've thought about this a lot. It's hard to plot nascent shifts in social attitudes. I fear that because of Beatie and a couple of other guys like him, people won't take trans men seriously. I worry that I, for one, will still be seen as a woman by some people.
Well, that's going to happen no matter what I do.
I now feel that there is no good way to chart the early influence of pregnant trans men on the general population. Some people might be confused, some might be disrespectful...but some might be intrigued enough to do a little reading and thinking. That's good, isn't it?
There's a saying that there's no such thing as bad publicity. I don't know that I agree with it, but the main exposure that trans men are getting these days is through Chaz Bono and guys like Thomas Beatie and, perhaps to a lesser extent, Brandon Teena. Personally, I wouldn't have chosen any of these guys to "represent" me and other trans guys; I would have preferred someone like James Green to be our poster child. But you have to admit that we are gaining exposure and that it would be difficult for us to get any kind of acceptance without being in the public eye. Maybe these pregnant men will open some doors and pave the way to greater acceptance later.
I dunno. But it is a possibility, however uncomfortable it might be for those of us who would never willingly bear a child under any circumstances.
I do think it puts some doubt on how other people think of us being serious or 'real' transsexuals.
The physical need to bear a child is an inherently womanly thing. He shouldn't have transitioned if he had that desire.
And if you argue about his want to have a genetically similar child, dumb. That's just ego. Get over it and adopt, if you want a kid. Not like we're suffering from overpopulation and there aren't millions of desperate children out there to be adopted as it is. A child is what you make it out of the womb, not if you jizzed it into being or if it sat feeding off of your insides for nine months.
I certainly can't understand it, but whatever they (pregnant transmen) is their business.
I'm not that type, I reject the parts and the womanhood and all that. I figured that other FTMs were the same but I guess not.
I don't think child-bearing is a "womanly" thing. Wombs and vaginas are just organs, nothing else. I fail to see what is so inherently gendered about them. If a man chooses to use them "as nature intended" I don't see how that makes his manhood any less legitimate. It's very understandable that many trans people would be very uncomfortable with the thought of doing something that society almost exclusively associates with the opposite gender, and I actually think it's extremely brave for someone to transcend a gender role that is so heavily ingrained into society. Some people are not dysphoric about their organs, but rather about how society perceives them because they have those organs.
I think if you want a kid, you should hold off on transitioning (for the most part) until the child is born. However, I'm not going to get up in arms over it if someone decides to have a kid later on in the transition.
I'd love to have my own kid, so I'll only be transitioning part of the way. Plus, the results for bottom surgery are very undesirable to me.
And to think I'm less of a man than you because I won't transition all of the way makes me a touch ticked. For various reasons, such as wanting a kid, I'm unable to transition all of the way.
I don't understand it but people don't understand what we (transsexuals) do to our bodies either.
Quote from: TheAetherealMeadow on June 27, 2010, 09:15:35 PM
I don't think child-bearing is a "womanly" thing. Wombs and vaginas are just organs, nothing else. I fail to see what is so inherently gendered about them.
... Only females have wombs. Most females, upwards of 99% out of the entire population I'd guess, turn out to remain female. What's /not/ so inherently gendered? Men don't have wombs. Women do. That's why we change. Binary system. Very, very, very few escape it, or modify themselves within it. You're deluding yourself.
Quote from: DaddySplicer on June 27, 2010, 09:34:00 PMBinary system.
Hmm. Then I guess you don't recognize androgynes, non/antigender folks, bigenders, trigenders, gender-fluid people, and whatever other nontraditional folks happen to be floating around?
Quote from: Arch on June 27, 2010, 09:56:02 PM
Hmm. Then I guess you don't recognize androgynes, non/antigender folks, bigenders, trigenders, gender-fluid people, and whatever other nontraditional folks happen to be floating around?
I said following that: Very, very, very few people escape it.
I can't understand how a trans man could deal with the dysphoria I imagine that would conjure, but to each his own.
I want babies btw!
Quote from: Jen on June 27, 2010, 10:03:08 PM
I can't understand how a trans man could deal with the dysphoria I imagine that would conjure, but to each his own.
I want babies btw!
I couldn't handle it (I mean, I got through it, but not without some serious physical and psychological scarring, and I did things that weren't good for the baby either), but not everyone is as profoundly affected by hormonal changes. A guy who's stable and has a strong support system can get through it.
Quote from: DaddySplicer on June 27, 2010, 10:00:02 PMI said following that: Very, very, very few people escape it.
Sorry, I thought you must mean something else by that remark because you pretty clearly indicated that Thomas Beatie shouldn't be doing what he's doing (meaning that he hasn't escaped the binary?) and that TheAetherealMeadow is deluding herself (implying that nobody at all escapes the binary?). I wasn't trying to quote you out of context.
I'm still a bit confused about what your opinion is. If Beatie says that he's a man and that he's secure in his sense of self, and then he has a baby or three, why can't he be one of the very, very, very few that you mention? Or are you saying that he is? I'm all mixed up.
Agrees with Daddysplicer & Silverfang.
If they're not dysphoric, why are they transitioning? For the fun of it? Entertainment?
I'm going to blunt here. If you believe that you're a man, you wouldn't do anything female. I also strongly believe that if you're a transman and do this sort of stuff, you probably don't even think or consider yourself a man cause you're clearly not playing the role of one. So, why transition? Yes, I also don't understand people who wanna be stuck in-between. It's either you're going to be a male or female. Gay or straight. I don't like the whole idea of pansexuals, asexuals so many sexualities and these are the type of people who always say "i love a person inside them, its not about the looks." etc. That's load of bull. Lust comes before any sort of emotions. You see a person, you get attracted to them and thats not cause you can see right through their heart, is it? We don't have x-ray eyes to know what sort of person they are. We are judging people by looks. Totally off topic but thought I'll point that out.
I don't think men should carry the baby.
Maybe there just not thst dysphoric about the parts needed to carry a kid but are about their chest, hips etc.
I personally couldn't ever be pregnant, I want hysto as soon as I can, I can't stand those organs but I don't hold it against other guys if they want a kid using there own parts. I don't understand the need to have your 'own' child but many people feel it and if you have the organs that you need why not use them if you can?
@Arch: Thomas Beatie can do whatever the hell he wants. It's not up to me or anyone else to say that he can't. However, because of his choice, he willingly submits his candidacy to be a public topic of controversy. Precisely for which, I will voice my own opinion about the matter.
By the word "binary", I am referring to our species' predisposition to be either female or male. For the most part, that's how it goes. Not many vary extraordinarily from that. However, all transsexuals (Beatie included, you see), obviously do. But we are a very, very small number of people in comparison with the whole of the rest of the human population. Ergo, "Very, very, very few escape it."
As for my comment on TheAetherealMeadow deluding herself, I was referring to the fairy tale version of culture she seems to have, where female reproductive organs are not immediately recognised and gendered as female. Because they are. Even if that's uncomfortable for us, that's the reality of the matter. Most of us have reproductive organs that are completely opposite of what we feel we should have been born with. To subject yourself to a fantasy in which people accept other people for what they say they are rather than using their instinctive nature, based on our binary system, is ridiculous.
We have a very small protective net here, as fellow transsexuals, but it doesn't extend far out into the rest of our world. I'm not saying that can't change, with a lot of time, but for now, female organs are female gendered, just as male organs are male gendered. That is why we're transsexuals.
I hope this cleared up any questions you had.
What difference does it make?
Pregnant men make their decisions and you make yours.
No one has brought up that there is a subset of men who don't bond with someone else's child. They want their own child no matter what. I'm not even a real man and I'd want my own kids and not some other person's. Maybe that is part of the drive to suffer a pregnancy.
Maybe.
And not that I want any children at all.
Post Merge: June 28, 2010, 08:31:55 AM
I guess, as a nonbinary, I'm ridiculously happy to see someone defy convention and gender boundaries.
Quote from: Nathan. on June 28, 2010, 06:27:49 AM
Maybe there just not thst dysphoric about the parts needed to carry a kid but are about their chest, hips etc.
I personally couldn't ever be pregnant, I want hysto as soon as I can, I can't stand those organs but I don't hold it against other guys if they want a kid using there own parts. I don't understand the need to have your 'own' child but many people feel it and if you have the organs that you need why not use them if you can?
Chest, hips? That's all? Then they're not much of a man, are they? Females aren't happy with their chest and hips but I don't see them transition. So, if these so called guys wanna get pregnant, they should just stay as a girl.
Quote from: accord03 on June 28, 2010, 04:57:26 AM
Agrees with Daddysplicer & Silverfang.
If they're not dysphoric, why are they transitioning? For the fun of it? Entertainment?
I'm going to blunt here. If you believe that you're a man, you wouldn't do anything female. I also strongly believe that if you're a transman and do this sort of stuff, you probably don't even think or consider yourself a man cause you're clearly not playing the role of one. So, why transition? Yes, I also don't understand people who wanna be stuck in-between. It's either you're going to be a male or female. Gay or straight. I don't like the whole idea of pansexuals, asexuals so many sexualities and these are the type of people who always say "i love a person inside them, its not about the looks." etc. That's load of bull. Lust comes before any sort of emotions. You see a person, you get attracted to them and thats not cause you can see right through their heart, is it? We don't have x-ray eyes to know what sort of person they are. We are judging people by looks. Totally off topic but thought I'll point that out.
I don't think men should carry the baby.
I feel I'm male, but I do plenty of things female. I don't identify as a masculine male, I identify as a feminine/gay male trapped in a girl's body. And yet I would like kids at some point in time. I'd prefer adoption, but I'm not against carrying a child of any sort. I'm bisexual/pansexual. I really don't care what someone's gender identity is and as long as they look somewhat decent (well, my version) and have a good personality, I'm willing to give you a chance. Pansexuals (from my understanding) don't care about the gender identity of the person so they're fine dating MtFs, FtMs, etc.
I sort of agree, I don't think men should carry a child if they've transitioned half-way or most of the way. Before that, I really don't care. Actually, I really don't care if they decide to carry a child later on. It's their choice and things can come up that cause them to hold off full transition so they can carry a child.
Umm....my chest causes me the greatest amount of dysphoria because I see it all of the time. I don't see my uterus and ovaries so they cause me the least amount of dysphoria. So, I'm more likely to partially transition and just get the chest taken care of. I'd like my hips taken care of, too, but the uterus and stuff can stay until I'm done getting the job I want and when I'm done having children.
Quote from: DaddySplicer on June 28, 2010, 08:26:03 AMI hope this cleared up any questions you had.
Pretty much. But my non-trans friends seem to be a lot more resilient and accepting of non-binary parts and behavior than your non-trans friends seem to be--based on what you've said, anyway. Are you living in the Bible Belt? I seem to recall your saying something about that.
Post Merge: June 28, 2010, 11:55:22 AM
Quote from: accord03 on June 28, 2010, 04:57:26 AMI don't like the whole idea of pansexuals, asexuals so many sexualities and these are the type of people who always say "i love a person inside them, its not about the looks." etc. That's load of bull. Lust comes before any sort of emotions. You see a person, you get attracted to them and thats not cause you can see right through their heart, is it? We don't have x-ray eyes to know what sort of person they are. We are judging people by looks. Totally off topic but thought I'll point that out.
Accord, initial physical attraction is not synonymous with love. It is perfectly possible, even probable, for a person (whether gay, straight, or something else) to find a person physically attractive but then base love or the lack of it on who the person is.
When I was younger, I saw plenty of attractive guys that I was drawn to. Most of them I didn't fall in love with because I didn't click with them mentally. A few I did click with, and I fell in love. Unless they're looking for casual sex or a superficial relationship, that seems to be how most people operate in situations involving full mutual choice.
It makes perfect sense to me that a pansexual person would find all sorts of people attractive regardless of gender/sex but then would fall in love based on the person's character and personality.
Think about it.
Quote from: accord03 on June 28, 2010, 09:58:12 AM
Chest, hips? That's all? Then they're not much of a man, are they? Females aren't happy with their chest and hips but I don't see them transition. So, if these so called guys wanna get pregnant, they should just stay as a girl.
Just look at Buck Angel, he's a man but he doen't have loads of dysphoria with his genitals.
Also how woman hate their chest is different to transmen, we hate ours for just being there woman hate theirs for being to big/small.
Quote from: Arch on June 28, 2010, 11:44:08 AM
Are you living in the Bible Belt? I seem to recall your saying something about that.
No. I'm well cocooned in a gay/trans-friendly community. It's simply me voicing these opinions. However, I don't have any trans friends, outside of those I talk to sparingly on the internet. My family, my entire family, accepted and guarded the fact that I was transsexual, to allow me to grow up as a boy. I had all male friends. I have only male interests. I don't understand femininity. So, like any ignorant bigot, I'm affronted by this. I can't relate to it. I may be voicing the opinion of bible slammers, or others who have never been exposed to this world view, because I had the luxury of being able to grow up and fit in as I wanted to, unlike so many here who have received the worst and most undeserved punishments for just being born differently.
When I mentioned the Bible Belt, I wasn't trying to imply that you have Bible-Belt attitudes. I was mainly trying to suss out your current environment, the people who immediately surround you, because of these remarks:
Quote from: DaddySplicer on June 28, 2010, 08:26:03 AMTo subject yourself to a fantasy in which people accept other people for what they say they are rather than using their instinctive nature, based on our binary system, is ridiculous.
...
We have a very small protective net here, as fellow transsexuals, but it doesn't extend far out into the rest of our world.
Even before transition, I didn't have a problem being accepted as male by other non-trans people in my circle of friends, acquaintances, and coworkers. I guess I got a better deal than most, but it really isn't a fantasy everywhere. I know what you mean about the "protective net" that doesn't go much beyond trans circles, but mine included pretty much everyone I knew.
It sounds like you had pretty decent parents and a fortunate upbringing for a trans kid. That seems to be happening more and more with the younger crowd. I'm glad you were able to have a more comfortable childhood than some of us had. I, for one, still feel a twinge of resentment when I visit a toy store and see all the "boy" things I was not allowed to have. And that is just the tip of a very large and cold iceberg, as I'm sure you can imagine.
But do remember that a lot of activities and preferences are coded as "male" or "female" by the society that formed us and are by no means biologically inherent to one sex or the other. If you get too dogmatic about which behaviors are one or the other, you can wind up with a somewhat cockeyed view of the thousands of little non-trans, non-lesbian girls who play with Tonka trucks or the many little straight cis boys who wish they could have a doll just like their sister's. Some of this forced "genderization" is quite harmful, so you wind up with guys like my ex, who can't talk about his feelings until he's about ready to explode (and even then, he does a pretty half-assed job), and perfectly competent girls who are afraid to take math classes because they've been trained to believe that girls are no good at math. Not that this is what you're doing, although to me, your condemnation of Thomas Beatie and others like him does seem to be a trifle overdeveloped. But that's your position, and I respect your right to hold it.
Frankly, I don't understand the guy either.
I'll get off my soapbox now. I'm allergic to soap anyway. :P
Quote from: Nathan. on June 28, 2010, 11:55:30 AM
Just look at Buck Angel, he's a man but he doen't have loads of dysphoria with his genitals.
Also how woman hate their chest is different to transmen, we hate ours for just being there woman hate theirs for being to big/small.
Buck Angel is a disgrace to the transman community. I think his a fake.
Quote from: accord03 on June 29, 2010, 08:30:34 AMBuck Angel is a disgrace to the transman community. I think his a fake.
Okay. Knock yourself out.
Quote from: accord03 on June 29, 2010, 08:30:34 AM
Buck Angel is a disgrace to the transman community. I think his a fake.
No porn star ever has ever been a disgrace to any one person, community or movement ever.
Don't you ever,
EVER besmirch the good and sacred name of pornography or persons therein for a simple forum discussion. Buck Angel is a good, good man, and he's no fake.
As a moderator, I have to say that I'm not pleased with the direction this thread has been taking. Please keep in mind the Terms of Service, specifically rule #5 and rule #10:
5. The posting of messages on the chat or forums which are of a threatening tone, obscene, pornographic, intended to titillate, or depict illegal acts will not be permitted.
10. Bashing or flaming of any individuals or groups is not acceptable behavior on this web site and will not be tolerated in the slightest for any reason. This includes but is not limited to:
* Advocating the separation or exclusion of one or more group from under the Transgender umbrella term
* Suggesting or claiming that one segment or sub-segment of our community is more legitimate, deserving, or more real than any others
Some posts are skating pretty close to the edge. Be careful, fellas. I don't want to have to lock this topic.
The porn comments were my attempt at funny.
Funny failure.
/shame.
Quote from: DaddySplicer on June 30, 2010, 08:08:48 PM
The porn comments were my attempt at funny.
Funny failure.
/shame.
Okay, then you need to be MUCH more over the top and use some enlightening emoticons. >:-) :o :icon_2gun: :icon_chainsaw: :icon_yikes: :icon_writers_block:
Sorry I didn't get it.
Quote from: DaddySplicer on June 27, 2010, 09:34:00 PM
... Only females have wombs. Most females, upwards of 99% out of the entire population I'd guess, turn out to remain female. What's /not/ so inherently gendered? Men don't have wombs. Women do. That's why we change. Binary system. Very, very, very few escape it, or modify themselves within it. You're deluding yourself.
Wombs aren't
inherently gendered. However, due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of people with wombs are female, our society genders wombs and childbirth as an exclusively "female" thing, and therefore our society genders them. Pregnant men are breaking this whole perception of genitalia=gender and I think that condemning them for doing something our society considers an exclusively female thing is cissexist, because it reinforces the idea that genitals are a 100% indicator of gender.
Quote from: TheAetherealMeadow on July 03, 2010, 06:18:49 PM
Wombs aren't inherently gendered. However, due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of people with wombs are female, our society genders wombs and childbirth as an exclusively "female" thing, and therefore our society genders them. Pregnant men are breaking this whole perception of genitalia=gender and I think that condemning them for doing something our society considers an exclusively female thing is cissexist, because it reinforces the idea that genitals are a 100% indicator of gender.
I'm probably just plain sexist to begin with, for which reason I'll be eliminating myself and my biased opinions on the matter from the discussion.
I have to say that I'm a lot more disturbed by the arguments going on here than about the ones in the comment section of the article... I expect those types of comments from those people. :(
99% of the article comments have me face palming. They seem to be a bit uneducated...okay a lot uneducated.
I had a kid, but I'm pre T. There's no way I would want to do that after I transition, but if others want to do that, it's cool with me. It's their life and reasons.
It's issues like these that make me so sympathize with the people who don't like us.
I hate that I can't ever have kids of my own, one of the reasons being I outright refuse to be the genetic 'father' of anyone.
The other is that it's just UNFAIR to the kid. I didn't get a normal upbringing or a normal childhood, for issues well beyond being trans. Like it or not, fair or not, to a degree that is also what this is depriving these children of too.
People, not just trans people but gay couples, and heterosexual single parents, feel like have the 'right' to children, I think you should have NO SUCH THING. If you are so selfish to put your biological compulsion to have children beyond the well being OF those children, then maybe you just shouldn't be a parent to begin with.
It's astoundingly selfish.
That's my view, I don't think trans people should be intentionally conceiving children for them to raise, I hold myself to that as someone who would in fact have loved to have had kids, I also think it should apply to gay couples, single parents, and just generally anyone not fit to give their children a relatively normal, happy life.
You should NOT have a right to kids, nobody should. And I think anybody who thinks they should is perhaps exactly the people who shouldn't have them.
::)
Ok begin flaming me.
Disclaimer: I might be a bit personally invested in this cause of how much non-trans ->-bleeped-<- I've had to go through because my mother felt she had the right to a kid whether my father wanted one or not, and the resulting fallout.
I also think that some trans people need to wake up and accept that some fellow trans people don't want to tow the LGBT party line. ::)
I've seen a lot of kids grow up under incredibly varied circumstances ranging from free-range hippie communes up in N. California and Oregon to very exclusive neighborhoods in some of the very nicest college towns, from pig-farm rural Iowa to the heart of the city in LA, SF and NYC and the vast majority of them - REGARDLESS of how they grew up - turned out to be pretty good and solid people. I've also seen kids be horrible kids and turn into even worse adults, and those are kids that come from loving, stable households. I'm not even sure what a 'normal' upbringing would consist of. Is that the early-to-bed-early-to-rise farm kids my kids grew up with - which oddly enough or not is about half the people I work with also. Or is it the people who were raised in Mid-Town Manhattan or Beverly Hills (I know one of each) and grew up in taxis and limos, a view from the 52nd floor overlooking the Hudson River and Brooklyn, or a panorama of the Hollywood Hills and LA out your bedroom window? Or maybe you just see the house next door like the suburban kids do? And I work with people and am around people who grew up in all those different ways and for the most part you can't tell any difference.
Well, well, well, you can never tell.
Quote from: Ashley4214 on July 04, 2010, 04:18:06 AMPeople, not just trans people but gay couples, and heterosexual single parents, feel like have the 'right' to children, I think you should have NO SUCH THING. If you are so selfish to put your biological compulsion to have children beyond the well being OF those children, then maybe you just shouldn't be a parent to begin with.
As I said before in this thread a couple of pages ago, you can easily make a case that people in all sorts of circumstances should not be having children because the children would be teased or would face some sort of discrimination. Queer, dark-skinned, physically disabled, mentally disordered, fat, unusually short, lower middle class, you name it.
I'm still thankful that a black family named Campbell braved American discrimination and had at least one kid, who later grew up and became my sixth-grade teacher. For one academic year, he gave me more attention and caring and nurturing than I was getting at home from my nice white middle-class non-trans non-LGB parents.
Of course, my mother had some psychological issues that nobody ever acknowledged to me until I was a teenager and that messed up both me and my brother...but your list of disqualifying factors doesn't include undiagnosed psych issues. Maybe you should add them to your list.
One man's opinion...
Quote from: Arch on July 04, 2010, 10:55:39 AM
but your list of disqualifying factors doesn't include undiagnosed psych issues. Maybe you should add them to your list.
One man's opinion...
I see no reason why not.
Just to add a couple things to my previous post, I'm NOT saying that any of these upbringing environments outright can't result in a positive outcome for the child. I'm also not saying that people shouldn't have a fundamental right to produce kids to the degree that they are biologically capable of. These 'rules' I mentioned are only something I think should apply to things like IVF, and established systems designed to aid people in conceiving kids. (To be honest I have a lot of concerns about IVF generally).
Quote from: Ashley4214 on July 04, 2010, 04:18:06 AM
...but gay couples, and heterosexual single parents, feel like have the 'right' to children, I think you should have NO SUCH THING. If you are so selfish to put your biological compulsion to have children beyond the well being OF those children, then maybe you just shouldn't be a parent to begin with.
It's astoundingly selfish.
That's my view, I don't think trans people should be intentionally conceiving children for them to raise, I hold myself to that as someone who would in fact have loved to have had kids, I also think it should apply to gay couples, single parents, and just generally anyone not fit to give their children a relatively normal, happy life.
What is normal? We redefine what it means to be normal everyday. YOU have defied normal, just by being yourself, and people call us selfish for doing that. Limiting the world's viable parents to straight married couples will not guarantee them a happy life, nor does being in a household with two moms or dads deny them that (and it's not just us gays saying that, studies prove it). Not intended as a "flame" but I do find it highly offensive that you would generalize against a whole people, based on what you perceive to be normal.
Quote from: Arch on July 04, 2010, 10:55:39 AM
I'm still thankful that a black family named Campbell braved American discrimination and had at least one kid, who later grew up and became my sixth-grade teacher.
Good point, Arch. Should African-Americans or Hispanic-Americans, or any other racial minority not be allowed to reproduce solely based on the fact that their kids might be teased and have an altered life of less opportunities based on the color of their skin? Of course you wouldn't. It's not cool to be a racist anymore. Instead we put our focus as a society on making the world better for these kinds of people. Gays still have a huge target on our backs. We aren't to a point of equality yet (and neither, really are racial minorities), and, personally, I think instead of calling them selfish for wanting to bring life into this world, and raise a family, we should be working toward that equality.
BTW, I hate kids. I think there is really no need for them anymore, the world is over-populated as it is, and I never want any of the little brats near me. But, I will fight to the death for our right to have them.
Quote from: Randy on July 04, 2010, 03:36:14 PM
What is normal? We redefine what it means to be normal everyday. YOU have defied normal, just by being yourself, and people call us selfish for doing that. Limiting the world's viable parents to straight married couples will not guarantee them a happy life, nor does being in a household with two moms or dads deny them that (and it's not just us gays saying that, studies prove it). Not intended as a "flame" but I do find it highly offensive that you would generalize against a whole people, based on what you perceive to be normal.
I think to a degree you have (understandably) misinterpreted me.
Yes, you're right that kids from a same sex parentage can grow up just fine and have had a happy childhood.
Yes, you're right that being from a heterosexual parentage in NO way precludes having a very dysfunctional UNhappy upbringing.
Yes, you're right that in the past, studies tend to show no significant difference in actual outcome from a same sex upbringing (however the same is NOT true of a single parent upbringing)
I don't challenge or disagree with any of those points.
What I believe however, is that a same sex parental upbringing is a LESS good upbringing than a hextrosexual two parent upbringing. Less good in that the quality of that parenting is lacking by missing either the presence of a mother or (much more frequently) a father. And I believe that while the kind of person that child turns out to be may still be a very happy, functional adult, that kind of upbringing is inferior in quality, and that we should not be purposefully helping them to conceive children for an inferior upbringing.
Quote from: Randy on July 04, 2010, 03:36:14 PM
Good point, Arch. Should African-Americans or Hispanic-Americans, or any other racial minority not be allowed to reproduce solely based on the fact that their kids might be teased and have an altered life of less opportunities based on the color of their skin? Of course you wouldn't. It's not cool to be a racist anymore. Instead we put our focus as a society on making the world better for these kinds of people. Gays still have a huge target on our backs. We aren't to a point of equality yet (and neither, really are racial minorities), and, personally, I think instead of calling them selfish for wanting to bring life into this world, and raise a family, we should be working toward that equality.
BTW, I hate kids. I think there is really no need for them anymore, the world is over-populated as it is, and I never want any of the little brats near me. But, I will fight to the death for our right to have them.
If you think I am advocating preventing people from conceiving children amongst themselves for themselves by say, mandatory sterilization, then you're completely wrong.
There are two major differences here between your example and this one.
One is that different races require NO extra help to have children, gay couples and single parents do, so even if I was saying that some races shouldn't have kids (which of course I am NOT), it's still purely a moral issue and in no way a legal one, cause I'll never support suppression of people having kids to the natural ability that they can. Only in not helping them when they can't.
The other major issue is simply that there is NO inherent deficiency in a hetrosexual non-white parentage, the differences are 100% a social construct. I do NOT believe that all the deficiencies in a single parent or same sex upbringing are socially induced, I think they are inherent to the dynamic of the upbringing, which is to say I think there should be an influence by a member of each gender.
Arguing that it's "equal rights" for gays to have kids, is assuming that homosexual relationships are the same as hetrosexual ones, they're not, they're equally valid, but they're not the same, and they don't have the same things to offer a child. I also outright reject any concept that it's your (straight, gay, anybody) 'right' to have children.
It's not, you have no right to have kids, you have a right to be able to TRY to have kids to the extent you are biologically capable. As soon as anyone else has to step in to help, it's not your right anymore.
Post Merge: July 04, 2010, 07:16:35 PM
Quote from: Arch on July 04, 2010, 10:55:39 AM
As I said before in this thread a couple of pages ago, you can easily make a case that people in all sorts of circumstances should not be having children because the children would be teased or would face some sort of discrimination. Queer, dark-skinned, physically disabled, mentally disordered, fat, unusually short, lower middle class, you name it.
I don't know that physically disabled or mentally disordered, or extremely poor people should be having children either
Quote from: Ashley4214 on July 04, 2010, 07:10:35 PM
Yes, you're right that kids from a same sex parentage can grow up just fine and have had a happy childhood.
Yes, you're right that being from a heterosexual parentage in NO way precludes having a very dysfunctional UNhappy upbringing.
Yes, you're right that in the past, studies tend to show no significant difference in actual outcome from a same sex upbringing (however the same is NOT true of a single parent upbringing)
I don't challenge or disagree with any of those points.
What I believe however, is that a same sex parental upbringing is a LESS good upbringing than a hextrosexual two parent upbringing. Less good in that the quality of that parenting is lacking by missing either the presence of a mother or (much more frequently) a father. And I believe that while the kind of person that child turns out to be may still be a very happy, functional adult, that kind of upbringing is inferior in quality, and that we should not be purposefully helping them to conceive children for an inferior upbringing.
You can believe that all you want, but that doesn't make you right. Unless you can provide some sort of evidence that you're right - objective, verifiable reproducible evidence to refute the existing evidence that you're wrong - your belief in this matter is equivalent in value to other people's belief that the Earth is six thousand years old or that transsexuality is the collective delusion of a bunch of homosexual perverts. It's your right to have it, but it has no business in the public sphere affecting social policy.
Post Merge: July 04, 2010, 07:27:43 PM
Also, same-sex couples and single people have very little trouble having kids the natural way. Even if the wider society doesn't help them, they can help each other quite easily. Gay or single does not equal infertile. What's missing - what the wider society would need to provide, but refuses - are the legal protections that would allow the children of same-sex couples and single parents to have the same social and financial stability as children of heterosexually married couples. And it's quite clear that the absence of these protections doesn't and can't stop anyone from having children. It only punishes the children.
Quote from: kyril on July 04, 2010, 07:21:29 PM
You can believe that all you want, but that doesn't make you right. Unless you can provide some sort of evidence that you're right - objective, verifiable reproducible evidence to refute the existing evidence that you're wrong - your belief in this matter is equivalent in value to other people's belief that the Earth is six thousand years old or that transsexuality is the collective delusion of a bunch of homosexual perverts. It's your right to have it, but it has no business in the public sphere affecting social policy.
Post Merge: July 04, 2010, 07:27:43 PM
Also, same-sex couples and single people have very little trouble having kids the natural way. Even if the wider society doesn't help them, they can help each other quite easily. Gay or single does not equal infertile. What's missing - what the wider society would need to provide, but refuses - are the legal protections that would allow the children of same-sex couples and single parents to have the same social and financial stability as children of heterosexually married couples. And it's quite clear that the absence of these protections doesn't and can't stop anyone from having children. It only punishes the children.
They can, but they shouldn't.
And yes, I have no proof, and guess what, neither do you.
But when it's involving another non consenting party (the child), you don't have inherent rights.
Just like I can believe all I want, so can you, but you have no more evidence that same sex parentage is an equal environment.
Quote from: Ashley4214 on July 04, 2010, 08:31:24 PM
They can, but they shouldn't.
And yes, I have no proof, and guess what, neither do you.
But when it's involving another non consenting party (the child), you don't have inherent rights.
Just like I can believe all I want, so can you, but you have no more evidence that same sex parentage is an equal environment.
I don't? You yourself conceded that the studies show that the outcome is the same or better.
Also, the burden of proof is on the person who wants to discriminate. Which would be you. If you want to implement a policy that requires differential treatment, you have to provide compelling evidence that the state has an interest in some result of that differential treatment.
Quote from: kyril on July 04, 2010, 08:37:47 PM
I don't? You yourself conceded that the studies show that the outcome is the same or better.
Also, the burden of proof is on the person who wants to discriminate. Which would be you. If you want to implement a policy that requires differential treatment, you have to provide compelling evidence that the state has an interest in some result of that differential treatment.
Woah woah, I did NOT conceded that studies show that the outcome is the same 'or better', NOTHING has EVER shown that it's better.
I did not concede that studies show that the out come is so much as the same.
What I said was "studies tend to show no significant difference in actual outcome from a same sex upbringing" and then followed that with how the same outcome doesn't make for an equal path TO that outcome.
You can have a child of a single parent abusive alcoholic turn out great while one from a 2 parent perfect upbringing becomes a criminal, that doesn't mean that the abusive alcoholic upbringing isn't a worse one to experience even if the outcome is the same.
And no, the burden of proof should be on the people who want a child, to be able to prove they're capable of giving that child a good upbringing, before they get any extra assistance.
The childs interests come first, the burden of proof is on the people who want them and can't have them because of their special circumstances, which themselves might mitigate their suitability.
If you want to call it discrimination, you're free to do so, the reason I think homosexual couples should get differential treatment is because THEY ARE DIFFERENT. I think anyone who says that a same sex couple is an identical dynamic to a hetrosexual one is naive.
Quote from: Ashley4214 on July 04, 2010, 09:00:42 PMI think anyone who says that a same sex couple is an identical dynamic to a hetrosexual one is naive.
I'm pretty sure nobody here is saying that the dynamic is identical.
I did an argumentative speech on homosexuals adopting and/or raising children and I did find studies saying that the children generally faired the same of others, and would even be more tolerant of others than the children raised by heterosexual in some cases. I'll have to search for the studies again, but I'll post them when I find them.
I think anyone who says that a same sex couple is an identical dynamic to a hetrosexual one is naive.
I'm pretty sure nobody here is saying that the dynamic is identical.
No, but they do seem at least to be compatible. To wit - i.e. what the research really shows - : Children with two parents do better than children with one parent across the board. There is not enough data to say that any sort of sexual qualification makes a difference as of yet (though it might even tend to favor gay male couples because of the next two factors), but the number being two does tend to make a difference. Next is the education/income deal, so that kids of parents with higher than average income or education do better than kids with less well off parents. As measured by income, education and criminal records, the standard such measurements.
Quote from: Arch on July 04, 2010, 11:52:13 PM
I'm pretty sure nobody here is saying that the dynamic is identical.
And if it's not an identical dynamic, then it can't be assumed to be an equally good one to raise a child in, and the different dynamic deserves its own evaluation.
Quote from: Ashley4214 on July 05, 2010, 02:58:07 AMAnd if it's not an identical dynamic, then it can't be assumed to be an equally good one to raise a child in, and the different dynamic deserves its own evaluation.
Different issue from the one I challenged, as I'm sure you know.
If you're using two different means of evaluation without any sort of baseline, all you are doing is generating crap.
And, despite any amount of 'my childhood sucked' stories, they are but anecdotes, and anecdote is no way to make policy.
And, as a general group, the kids who turned into the best adults, well-rounded, hard workers, extremely social, giving, caring (as opposed to self-centered, if not self-obsessed), were those raised by real hippies on rural communes. Apparently running around naked and not having religion combined with hard, hot, backbreaking work and no electronic media to 'entertain' you is a great path to self-actualization.
I know this is kind of an old post, but this really bothered me when I read it (more than the other things that I don't agree with that were said)
Quote from: Ashley4214 on July 04, 2010, 07:10:35 PM
What I believe however, is that a same sex parental upbringing is a LESS good upbringing than a hextrosexual two parent upbringing. Less good in that the quality of that parenting is lacking by missing either the presence of a mother or (much more frequently) a father. And I believe that while the kind of person that child turns out to be may still be a very happy, functional adult, that kind of upbringing is inferior in quality, and that we should not be purposefully helping them to conceive children for an inferior upbringing.
Post Merge: July 04, 2010, 07:16:35 PM
I don't understand how you could compare generalized upbringings and decide which one is inferior to the other. Only the person who has had that upbringing can decide the "quality" of it, as they were the one to experience it. What makes you think that you have the RIGHT to judge situations that have nothing to do with you personally?
On another note, why does the lack of a mother/father really matter when the parent(s) wanting children are ready to provide love for their child? If two men want a child because they are driven to love their child no matter what, and give them a great life, then why should it make the child's experience any less of one for not having a "mother"? The same goes for two women, single parents (because hey, one person can love their child even without a partner), and everyone else who lives outside of the gender binary (they have feelings, too). Having a parent/parents that love you and accept you for you are no less qualified because they cannot provide the "traditional" family set-up (mother, father, child). Screw traditions, love is love.
I am not exactly sure how to reply to this topic as it being a sensitive one..but the way I look at it how manyy men can say that they have in fact been pregnant and had the child? To me it doesn't make them any less a man, and I have myself had a baby that is my own flesh and blood. The only thing is that only happend cause my partner talked me into it and he didn't pull out when I asked him to do such and I don't believe in abortions its an live and let live thing. But that's all I'm gonna say as I'm probably getting all kinds of hate right now...
And I don't see how anyone can hate or discrimninate an other for whatever the reason(s). True there are some people that I can't stand but I still don't hate them or anything, but I do stay away from them for good reasons heh
I wouldn't get pregnant for any reason, EVER. That is actually one of my greatest fears.
ya know i'm just going to say what i feel, as the Dr Seuss quote says "be who you are, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." well this quite frankly amazes me. honestly. i know why most guys get really freaked out by the concept of a pregnant man because everyone's been raised with gender roles of what men do and what women do and that's obviously what only women do. usually. that is until transmen started saying screw you to the world and did what they knew felt right to them. I'm left speechless with how many related topics there are to this at the bottom of this page. how many other men are carrying a child, or twins?? or had kids. *scrolls down* it was there before i clicked 'reply' anyway.
i will always believe no matter how many people believe otherwise, that this is a medical miracle, haters hate me and the what 3 other people who don't have a problem with these guys if you will but it's really unique and special, to each his own, ever heard of that?
i myself am not entirely sure i would have a baby...eh probably not. wouldn't be comfortable at all, lol talk about gender dysphoria lol and I'd have to isolate myself for months because the world will go all END OF DAYS on me, not even mentioning having the right spouse for the kind of lifelong commitment parenting is first but that would certainly be one hell of a unique, rare life experience that hardly anyone can say they've had. so it's their body. not yours. this shouldn't even be news anymore.
Well, I'd love to have kids, I plan to have kids, and I'd resort to sperm banking to do it, single or not. I guess that makes me less of a woman. I'm sure it's different if you're a transman since you'd be the one getting pregnant, but I'm not able myself, nor am I likely to ever be able to carry a child without alot of trouble, so I can understand why someone would use whatever biological tool they had to become parents.
What irks me is how childbirth is described as "the most womanly thing possible". Biology is not destiny, folks. The idea that biology is destiny is the driving force behind cissexism and sexism in general. In the words of Thomas Beatie, childbirth is a human experience, not a female experience.
I agree. I'm astounded by some of the replies to this post. Why is giving birth womanly? This man was born with a uterus, it's his to do with as he pleases.
Quote from: Transfinite on February 14, 2011, 12:06:17 AM
This man was born with a uterus, it's his to do with as he pleases.
I agree. We are stuck with the equipment we are born with. If someone wants to have a child before they lose the ability to do so, I don't see why that is a problem.