# Thomas the Pregnant Man



## Kacey (Jun 11, 2008)

I know... the title is a tad odd - but it appears to be a real situation.  Thomas is a transgendered man who was originally a woman; his wife is unable to bear more children due to endometriosis, so using artificial insemination, they decided to have Thomas bear their child.  The story is here.

This is, undoubtedly, a truly unusual, and, at the moment, unique situation; however, it brings up a question.  I understand the desire to have one's own children; however, there are uncounted children who need to be adopted.  In light of those children, should people be going to this level of technology to have children of their own, or should they be investigating adoption (or fostering) of one or more of these needy children?


----------



## Nolerama (Jun 11, 2008)

Could that be looked at like two lesbians wanting to have a baby through artificial insemination, and one of them can't bring a baby to term, so the other one artificially inseminates herself?

I see the validity in adopting, but I think it should be applied to all people who are able to procreate via any means. It's still a choice between having your own baby, or adopting.

That's like saying "John and Kate Plus Eight" should have adopted instead of taking fertility medicine.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 11, 2008)

Freakshow


----------



## Kacey (Jun 11, 2008)

Nolerama said:


> Could that be looked at like two lesbians wanting to have a baby through artificial insemination, and one of them can't bring a baby to term, so the other one artificially inseminates herself?
> 
> I see the validity in adopting, but I think it should be applied to all people who are able to procreate via any means. It's still a choice between having your own baby, or adopting.
> 
> That's like saying "John and Kate Plus Eight" should have adopted instead of taking fertility medicine.


Actually, that's exactly what I'm saying.  With so many children in need of parents - _should_ people be spending thousands, tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars on fertility treatments instead of adopting?


----------



## tellner (Jun 11, 2008)

It's been discussed on other threads. It turns out that it's not the first time this has happened. It's just the first time it's gotten its fifteen minutes of fame. From what I remember the babies in the other cases did not suffer any recorded ill effects from the extra dose of male hormones _in utero_.

A "Freakshow"? Archangel, most people's lives would be "freakshows" if you held them up to a hostile public, yours and mine included. If you don't like the couple and their baby nobody will make you kiss them. But as long as they care for the kid competently whatever else they do "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg".


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 11, 2008)

Didnt say crucify them or boil them in oil or start a petition to my congressman. my opinion is my own take it or stuff it. In my opinion all these "alternate family"-force them down the mainstream- situations are a freakshow. If they are all obeying our laws, Im not interested in pillorying anybody, but I dont like it.

So there. Im not picking your pocket or breaking your leg with my opinion.


----------



## tellner (Jun 11, 2008)

Kacey said:


> Actually, that's exactly what I'm saying.  With so many children in need of parents - _should_ people be spending thousands, tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars on fertility treatments instead of adopting?



That is just about as personal a question and undeniable a right as a couple can have. As far as it goes it costs "thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars" to adopt. And some people, like my wife and I, simply can't adopt. The Church-based agencies won't look at you if you're the wrong flavor. The others don't want to do business with mixed-race families.


----------



## Nolerama (Jun 11, 2008)

Kacey said:


> Actually, that's exactly what I'm saying.  With so many children in need of parents - _should_ people be spending thousands, tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars on fertility treatments instead of adopting?



If it were my choice, then no. I'd rather adopt.

But in terms of people in general... well, I'm going to start with the American people in general, then no. They have a choice too. As long as they are able to take care of a child to adulthood whether it be by natural birth or adoption, I see no problem in having the choice.

Personally, I think we should all stop procreating, let a few generations die off to get the planet back in order and leave whoever is left to form a Utopian society that will eventually establish human life on other planets in order to increase our existence in the universe... ;P


----------



## Steel Tiger (Jun 11, 2008)

Kacey said:


> I know... the title is a tad odd - but it appears to be a real situation. Thomas is a transgendered man who was originally a woman; his wife is unable to bear more children due to endometriosis, so using artificial insemination, they decided to have Thomas bear their child. The story is here.
> 
> This is, undoubtedly, a truly unusual, and, at the moment, unique situation; however, it brings up a question. I understand the desire to have one's own children; however, there are uncounted children who need to be adopted. In light of those children, should people be going to this level of technology to have children of their own, or should they be investigating adoption (or fostering) of one or more of these needy children?


 
This one keeps popping up in the news because it keeps getting reported as "Man Becomes Pregnant" as though the natural laws have been turned on their head.  But that's not the case.  Gender transformation is only cosmetic.  No one took out this woman's uterus and ova and replaced them with testes.  Its simply a case of a woman, who looks like a man, having a baby.

It would seem more responsible to spend all that money on raising a child who is already with us, than producing another one.  The truly greatest problem facing humanity today is overpopulation, almost every other problem can be traced back to there just being too many of us.  But adoption runs counter to our biology which demands that we pass on our unique contribution rather than nuturing someone elses.  I would have liked to have seen them adopt, but, ultimately, its their decision.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 11, 2008)

Not a man


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 11, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Not a man



Is this a man?






She never had a surgery or took a hormone in her life.  Yet, a genetic test would show she is in fact male - XY genotype.

Biology must make you very uncomfortable.  No hard and fast categories.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 11, 2008)

Anomalies are only anomalies...


----------



## BrandiJo (Jun 11, 2008)

It is pretty hard for a a non-typical family to adopt, from what I have heard. So for them maybe this was the only option? Personally I think its a bit odd having a male carry a child but if he still has the female parts why not? 

Adoption is a good thing when you can jump through all the hoops to do it... but its not an easy process and many are not "qualified" and i find that very odd given the amount of "unwanted" children out there... but its not me who makes the rules.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 11, 2008)

BrandiJo said:


> It is pretty hard for a a non-typical family to adopt, from what I have heard. So for them maybe this was the only option? Personally I think its a bit odd having a male carry a child but if he still has the female parts why not?
> 
> Adoption is a good thing when you can jump through all the hoops to do it... but its not an easy process and many are not "qualified" and i find that very odd given the amount of "unwanted" children out there... but its not me who makes the rules.


 
Actaully, there are some guys who put themselves through what there pregnant wives go through. They eat salt at night to have morning sickness, put on a weight vest (and add weight every day or so), and so on. However, if they stop doing these things, there body might actually think they are pregnant! Breasts swell, continued morning sickness, weight gain, you see where I'm going with this. 
Why? Every human is at first a woman. The female is the template, but after a few months, male hormones may be injected creating a man! This is based on either XX or XY. But, things go wrong (like the lady above). This process also explains why men have nipples, and mamary tissue (also know as what makes a boob a boob)

Also, that "chick" is hot! That she's geneticlly a man confuses me, and makes wounder about myself....


----------



## Big Don (Jun 11, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Is this a man?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not who or what we are talking about.
How many legs has a dog if you call the tail a leg?
Four, calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one. Nor, is the lesbian who is having the baby a man.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 12, 2008)

Kacey said:


> Actually, that's exactly what I'm saying.  With so many children in need of parents - _should_ people be spending thousands, tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars on fertility treatments instead of adopting?


AMEN!! Thousands, perhaps millions world wide are without both parents. Just because the child isn't your blood does NOT mean it won't need the same love and nurturing and a decent home that you can provide. 
One of my brothers and his wife tried unsuccessfully to conceive a child of their own. They went through the pain of nearly 8 miscarriages over 11 years of marriage. Fertility tests for each. She just wasn't capable of carrying to term. 

Finally they decided to become foster parents and that lead them to adopting 5 children for their own. 

Something I think they should've done that years ago, even while still trying to conceive. 

This story about the woman who is now a man doing what only a woman can is just... well someone else said it... a freak show. P.T. Barnum and Ripley would be proud.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 12, 2008)

I don't actually care what sex or who has a child as long as it's loved, wanted and looked after. We've had several situations here where a so called normal family of a male father and a female mother have neglected, beaten or killed their children. A small girl starved to death and her siblings taken into care after her so called normal parents neglected them, a mother stabbed three of her children, two died one is fighting for it's life, a father through himseld off a roof with his two children, killing one of them and sadly not himself. I could go on. 
In this country it's proving imposssible to adopt now, they won't allow mixed race adoptions, you can't adopt if you are middle class or earn too much, or smoke or are what they consider overweight more and more people wanting to adopt are looking to China and other countries.

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/femai...al-workers-said-middle-class-white-adopt.html


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 12, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> In my opinion all these "alternate family"-force them down the mainstream- situations are a freakshow.


 
Have you ever taken the time to rationally think about this opinion?  It's brutal, oppressive, ultimately cowardly because you just so happen to belong to part of a big group and somehow you feel entitled to wag your finger at others who are different.  

Think about it.  You called a *family* a freakshow.  These are people who  are raising children just like mine and are just trying to be happy with who they are.  Why does this inspire violence in you?  Why do you feel the need to bully them?  Have you considered that their might be "alternative" family members on this site?  Why do you want to hurt people?

You may think that you are entitled to have this opinion, that you somehow have the license to hurt others because you just so happen to belong to the majority, that you can say whatever you want.  Fine.  

So, here's my opinion...

You called a *family* a freakshow.  That's a horrible thing to say to anyone.


----------



## girlbug2 (Jun 12, 2008)

Tez3 -- multiracial adoptions are _not allowed _in England? Why?
Here in the states it seems just the opposite, anything goes, except that few people will take advantage of their freedom to adopt the available kids. I think ultimately that most couples don't want to admit that they want kids that "look like them".
Sad, really...


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 12, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Have you ever taken the time to rationally think about this opinion?  It's brutal, oppressive, ultimately cowardly because you just so happen to belong to part of a big group and somehow you feel entitled to wag your finger at others who are different.
> 
> Think about it.  You called a *family* a freakshow.  These are people who  are raising children just like mine and are just trying to be happy with who they are.  Why does this inspire violence in you?  Why do you feel the need to bully them?  Have you considered that their might be "alternative" family members on this site?  Why do you want to hurt people?
> 
> ...






> Main Entry:
> 1*freak *
> Pronunciation: \&#712;fr&#275;k\  Function: noun Etymology: origin unknown
> Date: 1563
> *3: one that is markedly unusual or abnormal: *http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/freak



Considering that the father/mother (not the family) qualifies under THAT definition and that the natural order of things... has been skewed because of personal preferences and choices... it's a freak show. 
In a family where the MAN/MALE (who's been born as one) is the father and a WOMAN/FEMALE (who's been born as one) is the mother together combine to make a child ... I wouldn't call that freakish at all.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 12, 2008)

girlbug2 said:


> Tez3 -- multiracial adoptions are _not allowed _in England? Why?
> Here in the states it seems just the opposite, anything goes, except that few people will take advantage of their freedom to adopt the available kids. I think ultimately that most couples don't want to admit that they want kids that "look like them".
> Sad, really...


 
We have social workers who want to be seen as politically correct and only place ethic groups within the same ethnic group, as they believe only the same group can 'understand' them. To a certain extant you can agree with that, but the result is that many children are left growing up in care instead of in a loving family. I believe the quote from one of the social workers (white) is that he'd rather have children living in care than place a black child with a white family. It's racism in reverse where the social workers (Britains most hated group of people next to estate agents) want to show how 'understanding' they are. so much so that we've had child after child die from abusive parents because they were too politically correct to go and check on these children. 
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/whatwedo/me...licy/Child_deaths_media_briefing_wda49332.htm


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 12, 2008)

While that is true MA-Caver, there is a small differnce. While the definition maybe not-so-bad, the interpritpation generally given to the term "freak show" is anouther matter. A similar concept would be calling someone gay. The diffinition is happy, the likely intent is homosexual.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 12, 2008)

Tez3 said:


> social workers (Britains most hated group of people next to estate agents)


 
haha, in the states it's lawyers!!


----------



## Big Don (Jun 12, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> haha, in the states it's lawyers!!


Oh, I am sure they hate the lawyers there too...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 12, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> that the natural order of things...it's a freak show.


 
I wouldn't assume that you know what the "natural order of things" is?  No one really knows what causes people to be homosexual or transgender, it just happens.  

Maybe THATS the "the natural order of things"?  We just don't know.  

Calling someone a "freak" based on an assumption of what you think the "natural order of things" might be is wrong.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 12, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> While that is true MA-Caver, there is a small difference. While the definition maybe not-so-bad, the interpretation generally given to the term "freak show" is another matter. A similar concept would be calling someone gay. The definition is happy, the likely intent is homosexual.


I have several friends who would prefer to be called Gay than any of the derogatory terminology used in the past, in-fact they rather insist upon it. 

Well then, following that line of logic: Since Gay used to mean happy carefree (still does) and now is a more popular terminology for someone who prefers their own sex, ... then Freak Show could be end up as a popular terminology for a family of where one (or both) parents have had sex changes and have children from each other. It wouldn't have to be derogatory anymore wouldn't it?? :uhyeah:


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 12, 2008)

What children need and want is love and security. They don't care what the makeup of their family is they just want to be loved and wanted for all the right reasons.

MA Caver you could be on to something there, there is a history of taking an abusive name and calling yourself it to confound your enemy!
http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/oldcontemptibles.htm


----------



## tellner (Jun 12, 2008)

girlbug2 said:


> Tez3 -- multiracial adoptions are _not allowed _in England? Why?
> Here in the states it seems just the opposite, anything goes, except that few people will take advantage of their freedom to adopt the available kids. I think ultimately that most couples don't want to admit that they want kids that "look like them".



Girlbug, these 'states' you live in. I do not think they are the ones with their capital in Washington, DC. White kids are placed with White families. Black kids are placed with Black families and so on. It's almost impossible to adopt across the color lines. Mixed couples pretty much can't adopt because at least one parent will be "wrong". We found out when we started the process. They were very sorry. They were sure we'd be fine parents, but it was best for the child if it grew up with two parents who "could provide the correct cultural environment". 

I did a little checking and found out what "the correct cultural environment" means. It means that you don't mix light and dark meat on the same platter. In earlier more racist days it just wasn't done. During the late 60s/early 70s the Association of Black Social Workers raised a lot of hell. They yelled. They applied pressure. They threatened lawsuits. They compared transracial adoption to "genocide" and called it a "cultural Holocaust" against Blacks. They said it would be better for a child to grow up in an orphanage or shuttled from one foster home to another than to be adopted by a family that wasn't all Black. 

That became the accepted way of doing things. It was applied across all the stupid artificial ethnic categories we've created. And it hasn't changed significantly. Everyone with an ethnic axe to grind likes it. The liberals go with the Black social workers. The conservatives prefer the way it was done before when people kept more to their own. The ABSW and their sort feel important. The children who need homes and the parents who ache to provide them are just not that important.

The process of adopting is long, hard and like something out of Kafka. It will, not could or might but _will _cost many thousands of dollars. They will look at everything and apply strange standards about income, neighborhood, undefined "suitability", weight (like Tez said) and a lot of other things. Very often after all the time and money and heartbreak the birth mother will change her mind or the birth father will suddenly appear or you'll just be told that it isn't going to happen. Sometimes "after" means when the papers have been signed and the child is actually in your arms.

Some friends who got through the process a few years ago ended up spending thirty thousand dollars on two false starts before things finally worked. It took just about exactly twice as long as it would have to produce a child the old-fashioned way.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 12, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Have you ever taken the time to rationally think about this opinion? It's brutal, oppressive, ultimately cowardly because you just so happen to belong to part of a big group and somehow you feel entitled to wag your finger at others who are different.
> 
> Think about it. You called a *family* a freakshow. These are people who are raising children just like mine and are just trying to be happy with who they are. Why does this inspire violence in you? Why do you feel the need to bully them? Have you considered that their might be "alternative" family members on this site? Why do you want to hurt people?
> 
> ...


 
Violence? Bullying? Dude get over yourself. Thats my opinion, it appears you dont think im entitled to it. Typical...most libs are thought police at the core.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 12, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> I wouldn't assume that you know what the "natural order of things" is? No one really knows what causes people to be homosexual or transgender, it just happens.
> 
> Maybe THATS the "the natural order of things"? We just don't know.
> 
> Calling someone a "freak" based on an assumption of what you think the "natural order of things" might be is wrong.


 

See a lot of surgical procedures and hormone therapy in nature do ya? Anomalies do not count as a "natural process" or "normal". How do the vast majority of humans reproduce? We seem to have reached a point in history where its fashionable to normalize every marginal behavior or group. My opinion is, this is America, so if they are breaking no laws do as you will. However dont expect everybody to treat them as "normal".


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 12, 2008)

> Originally Posted by* upnorthkyosa *
> I wouldn't assume that you know what the "natural order of things" is? No one really knows what causes people to be homosexual or transgender, it just happens.


My friend, I honestly cannot believe after being around for all these years and seeing/knowing the things I have/do... that ANYTHING "just happens". :asian:


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 12, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Violence? Bullying? Dude get over yourself. Thats my opinion, it appears you dont think im entitled to it. Typical...most libs are thought police at the core.


OH I think you're entitled to it. We are allowed in this world and in this country to be any kind of ignoramus we wanna be, hate whomever we want to hate, point fingers in any direction to point.  

I personally don't care what anybody thinks ... your mind is YOUR prison ... NOT MINE.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 12, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Typical...most libs are thought police at the core.


 
Which explains why it's the conservatives who want to have a state-sancationed religion:rofl:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 12, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> My friend, I honestly cannot believe after being around for all these years and seeing/knowing the things I have/do... that ANYTHING "just happens". :asian:


 
All I meant is that we don't have an explanation for it.  We don't know why.  There's no way that anyone can logically differentiate between what might be natural or unnatural.  

With that being said, I think it would be best to err on the side of caution and try and have a little more empathy.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 12, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Which explains why it's the conservatives who want to have a state-sancationed religion:rofl:


Another pointless, baseless attack.
Name two conservatives who campaigned for a state-sanctioned religion.
Oh, that's right, you can't.
However, I can certainly name liberals who criticize Christianity and treat Islam as if it were holy writ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 12, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> See a lot of surgical procedures and hormone therapy in nature do ya? Anomalies do not count as a "natural process" or "normal". How do the vast majority of humans reproduce? We seem to have reached a point in history where its fashionable to normalize every marginal behavior or group. My opinion is, this is America, so if they are breaking no laws do as you will. However dont expect everybody to treat them as "normal".


 
Why are you so convinced you KNOW what normal is?


----------



## Big Don (Jun 12, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> All I meant is that we don't have an explanation for it.  We don't know why.  There's no way that anyone can logically differentiate between what might be natural or unnatural.
> 
> With that being said, I think it would be best to err on the side of caution and try and have a little more empathy.


Empathy is fine, however, a lesbian, mid way through the process of surgical and hormonal changes to APPEAR to be a man, is NOT, a man having a baby.
Oh, and isn't it a fetus?


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 12, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Violence? Bullying? Dude get over yourself. Thats my opinion, it appears you dont think im entitled to it. Typical...most libs are thought police at the core.


 

You know I'm really really fed up with trying to explain what liberals are instead of non liberal people TELLING me what we are and getting it so horribly wrong. You have absolutely no idea what liberals are and insist on using it to mean fascists. Say fascist or communist don't insult us the liberals (or Whigs if you prefer) by tarring us with the same brush.
this as has been explained before is a worldwide forum and you are insulting an awful lot of people who don't deserve it. 

Anyway why not treat GLBTs as normal, you'd hope they did they same to you wouldn't you? Treat people as you'd want to be treated, a very good motto for life.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 12, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Why are you so convinced you KNOW what normal is?


Perhaps, because he knows the definition of normal:


> nor·mal
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Surgically altering yourself to appear to the other sex is by no definition Normal.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 12, 2008)

Theres a difference in our society between "normal" and what some segments of society want us to treat as "normal". 

BTW Tez how many times do we have to discuss the differences between what an American means when he says "Lib" and what a Brit means??? And I am treating them as I would want to be treated. Im just stating my opinion that they are abnormal. I love the way LIBS  in this country seem to believe that if you dont say you absolutely love what people are doing than you are a hater.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 12, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Violence? Bullying? Dude get over yourself. Thats my opinion, it appears you dont think im entitled to it. Typical...most libs are thought police at the core.


 
You can express any bigotted opinion you want.  Don't expect other people to sit back and not excoriate you for it.

The bottom line is that your opinion has absolutely no basis.  You have no idea what is "normal" and what isn't.  It's just an assumption that you've never bothered to analyze.

With that being said, calling a family a freakshow is a form of violence and bullying.  They are just different...not freaks.  Freak is a perjorative reflective of your bias.  It reflective of your hatred toward things that do not comform to your unexamined assumptions.

You can be a better person then this.  I challenge you to rise above it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 12, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Empathy is fine, however, a lesbian, mid way through the process of surgical and hormonal changes to APPEAR to be a man, is NOT, a man having a baby.
> Oh, and isn't it a fetus?


 
Are these words more important then another person's happiness?


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 12, 2008)

Dont like someones opinion so you equate it to "Violence" sounds like thought police to me....


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 12, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Are these words more important then another person's happiness?


 
Lets ignore the truth as long as well all are happy eh?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 12, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Perhaps, because he knows the definition of normal:
> 
> Surgically altering yourself to appear to the other sex is by no definition Normal.


 
The definition doesn't help you because you are still assuming a standard that you THINK is normal.  That definition, in no way, spells out what you THINK is normal.  

Its just another unexamined assumption and the only thing you really are doing is arbitrarily deciding what you think is normal and what is not normal based off of that assumption.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 12, 2008)

Pregnant. But not a Man.



> But it takes more than a mastectomy and hormone treatments to overturn biology. Thomas may be a man in the eyes of the law, but she remains physically a woman, with a woman's reproductive system, a woman's genitals, and a woman's chromosomes. So when she and Nancy decided to have a baby, she had little trouble conceiving through artificial insemination. The result is the spectacle that has drawn so much attention: a bearded pregnant woman named Thomas, who identifies herself as a man, and has a lawfully wedded wife.
> 
> *What you make of all this depends on your political outlook.* Transgender activists, radical feminists, and others at the cultural extreme who insist that sex differences between men and women are patriarchal constructs, not hardwired facts of life, will applaud Thomas and Nancy as gender-bending pioneers challenging an oppressive male-female dichotomy. Those of us for whom gender is not a spectrum of possibilities but a matter of either/or are more likely to regard the whole situation as profoundly aberrant and detrimental - especially for the baby about to be brought into the world.
> 
> ...




Damn Straight!!


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 12, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> The definition doesn't help you because you are still assuming a standard that you THINK is normal. That definition, in no way, spells out what you THINK is normal.
> 
> Its just another unexamined assumption and the only thing you really are doing is arbitrarily deciding what you think is normal and what is not normal based off of that assumption.


 

Same applies to you dude.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 12, 2008)

....


> Headlines notwithstanding, there is no "pregnant man." There is only a confused and unsettled woman, who proclaims that surgery, hormones, and clothing made her a man, and is clinging to that fiction even as the baby growing in her womb announces her womanhood to the world.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 12, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Dont like someones opinion so you equate it to "Violence" sounds like thought police to me....


 
Freak is a perjorative term.  It's loaded with negative connotation exactly in the same way as any other hateful word.

You can say all of those things if you wish, but no one of any merit is going to respect you for it...

You make a choice.  I make a choice.  We go our separate ways and I have no respect for your opinion.

That's not thought police.

Again, just think about the fact that what you are saying is very hurtful to some people.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 12, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Lets ignore the truth as long as well all are happy eh?


 
Now you know the truth?


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 12, 2008)

Truth is this situation is far from "normal" or it wouldnt be news. Truth is this ISNT a man. Men dont become pregnant because we dont have ovaries or wombs. This is a gender confused woman wearing the medically applied disguise of a man.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 12, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Same applies to you dude.


 
Right.  Because I assume what I think is normal and bash anyone that doesn't fit that narrow definition...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 12, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Truth is this situation is far from "normal" or it wouldnt be news. Truth is this ISNT a man. Men dont become pregnant because we dont have ovaries or wombs. This is a gender confused woman wearing the medically applied disguise of a man.


 
Are words more important then another person's happiness?  Why is clinging to this dogma so important to you?  Ultimately, what does it avail you in the end?

Why can't a person just who they want to be?  Is conformity to your assumptions so important that you'll use perjoratives to enforce it?


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 12, 2008)

Words?? Facts!! This isnt a pregnant MAN/Male/someone with XY chromosomes. Its not a "miracle", its not "normal" otherwise we would see pregnant men walking around all over the place. You are confusing your social/political desires with common sense and logic.

Ill post this excerpt again...



> But it takes more than a mastectomy and hormone treatments to overturn biology. Thomas may be a man in the eyes of the law, but she remains physically a woman, with a woman's reproductive system, a woman's genitals, and a woman's chromosomes. So when she and Nancy decided to have a baby, she had little trouble conceiving through artificial insemination. The result is the spectacle that has drawn so much attention: a bearded pregnant woman named Thomas, who identifies herself as a man, and has a lawfully wedded wife.
> 
> What you make of all this depends on your political outlook. Transgender activists, radical feminists, and others at the cultural extreme who insist that sex differences between men and women are patriarchal constructs, not hardwired facts of life, will applaud Thomas and Nancy as gender-bending pioneers challenging an oppressive male-female dichotomy. Those of us for whom gender is not a spectrum of possibilities but a matter of either/or are more likely to regard the whole situation as profoundly aberrant and detrimental - especially for the baby about to be brought into the world.
> 
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 12, 2008)

If you want to cling to this narrow world view, fine, its your perogative.  The world is bigger, more complex, and more beautiful then the language you use to describe it.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 12, 2008)

On this "words" thing...ok, so ill SAY that "this is the most wonderful, beautiful, miraculous event to have happened..." and ill keep my real opinion to myself. Is that what you want? Is that the society you want?


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 12, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Another pointless, baseless attack.
> Name two conservatives who campaigned for a state-sanctioned religion.
> Oh, that's right, you can't.
> However, I can certainly name liberals who criticize Christianity and treat Islam as if it were holy writ...


 
Well, you're certainly one. I'm geussing you're one of those nice folks that wanted to outlaw Homosexual Marriage. There is no basis for such a law outside the fact that it's against the Christian Religion. That is, essentially, State Sponsered Religion. By the way, that's outlawed by the First Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 12, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> Well, you're certainly one. I'm geussing you're one of those nice folks that wanted to outlaw Homosexual Marriage. There is no basis for such a law outside the fact that it's against the Christian Religion. That is, essentially, State Sponsered Religion. By the way, that's outlawed by the First Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution.


 
Your confusing people who have opinions with people who are trying to force their opinion on others through legislation. Ive posted my opinion on this matter. Im not saying anything needs to be done TO or ABOUT these people.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 12, 2008)

Gentlemen can we allow ourselves to cool off before replying. I'm reading tones of disgruntlement and irritation. Lets not let this thread degenerate into a online fight. 

Thank you... :asian: 

Carry on.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 12, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Your confusing people who have opinions with people who are trying to force their opinion on others through legislation. Ive posted my opinion on this matter. Im not saying anything needs to be done TO or ABOUT these people.


 
Wasn't it part of the GOP platform for awhile that Homosexual marraige would be outlawed? Either way. One of the conerstones of Social Conservatism (which I'm geussing is what Don was talking about in the first place) is the idea of " common sense, family values" and that those values happen to coincide almost perfectly with what the Bible says, one can assume that Social Conservatism would be about making Christianity the State Religion.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 12, 2008)

BTW, last I knew, being a male or a female was a scientifically provable fact. That whole XX XY thing. Hermaphrodites, siamese twins, birth defects were the result of genetic abnormalities. When my wife was pregnant, we were expecting a boy or a girl...anything else would have been abnormal. Meaning not normal. This issue is about the politics of gender in society, not about any medical or scientific findings. Its amusing how people will bend their opinions regarding what FACT is depending on the subject. Argue the gvt. knocked down the trade center and there are FACTS galore. Debate the medical determination of gender...not so much.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 12, 2008)

So, what about XYY, and all those other abnormalities, where do they fit in? I think that is real topic here.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 12, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Not who or what we are talking about.



It is exactly what we are talking about.  A genotypic man and a phenotypic woman in the same body.  I'm not surprised you would prefer to ignore that.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 12, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Name two conservatives who campaigned for a state-sanctioned religion.
> Oh, that's right, you can't.



Can't?  It's not even difficult.

Ralph Reed.
Jerry Falwell.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 12, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> BTW, last I knew, being a male or a female was a scientifically provable fact. That whole XX XY thing.



Clearly you don't know much about science.  Look at the picture I posted on page 1 of this thread.  A genotypic man (XY) with the complete phenotype of a woman.  Science recognizes that there is a potential disconnect between DNA and what it produces.  There are no hard and fast categories, no matter how much the scared religious conservatives moan and wail.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 12, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> So, what about XYY, and all those other abnormalities, where do they fit in? I think that is real topic here.


 
In the natural world where surgery and pharm dont enter the equation, these abnormalities either dont survive or dont breed. All of these gender concepts are human constructs. Not that any of that is a bad thing..thank God (or whomever) for modern medicine, however we are confusing natural/normal with the "possible".


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 12, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> In the natural world where surgery and pharm dont enter the equation, these abnormalities either dont survive or dont breed.



None of the well-described sex chromosome abnormalities are particularly lethal.  Y alone would be, but of course they never survive to be described in the first place.

Many of the different combinations are also still fertile.  Turner females (X) are usually infertile, but not always.  Klinefelter males (XXY) have reduced but not eliminated fertility.  XYY syndrome has no noticeable effect on fertility.  And so forth.

Not that fertility or even survival is a rational basis for defining sex.  Plenty of women and men with normal genotype and phenotype are sterile for one reason or another.  Should they then not be considered female and male?  Doesn't make any sense.


----------



## tellner (Jun 12, 2008)

Conservatives who campaigned for state-sponsored religion? Let's start with...

The AFA, Focus on the Family, FRC, Hagee and Parsely (just to name two the butts McCain browned his nose on), Falwell, Robertson, American Right to Life, the Institute for Creation Research, the Gablers, Rushdoony, Huckabee, Bush, Gary North,George H. W. Bush (remember his "atheists aren't citizens" quote?), Howard Ahmanson, Jr., Greg Bahnsen, David Chilton, Gary DeMar, Kenneth Gentry, Andrew Sandlin, Coulter, D. James Kennedy, Scalia & Clarence Thomas (both of whom have stated that the Bible is the highest legal authority in the US and that G-d, not the consent of the governed, is the basis of the government's powers), the Southern Baptist Convention since 1980, David Barton, the Commandant of the Air Force Academy....

That's just the results of 90 seconds of scribbling by the clock. I can come up with pages more. 

Face it, Don. You just keep digging a deeper hole every time you open your mouth.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 12, 2008)

My point is not about the scientific basis of gender.  It about how one talks about people.  A person who is a biologic female, but feels she is a male, decided to have a baby because she had the right parts and her partner couldn't have anymore children.  

You said the entire family was a freakshow.  That's wrong.  No matter how you spin it.  

This isn't about her gender issues, its about how you demeaned the families humanity with your language.  Its about how you and so many others have such a hard time accepting that other types of families exist and how you think those families are somehow lesser then "normal" families.  

It's very judgemental and close minded.  I hope you meet one of these families someday so that it helps to alter your opinion of them.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 12, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> In the natural world where surgery and pharm dont enter the equation, these abnormalities either dont survive or dont breed. All of these gender concepts are human constructs. Not that any of that is a bad thing..thank God (or whomever) for modern medicine, however we are confusing natural/normal with the "possible".


 

Do I pass on to one of my students whose daughter has Turners that her daughter is to be considered an abnormality then?


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 12, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> In the natural world where surgery and pharm dont enter the equation, these abnormalities either dont survive or dont breed.


 
But sometimes its called evolution and they do better than thier predecessors, modern man may just have at one time been considered an abnormality. Spots on the back of a cheetah turning to stripes, is it an abnormality or is it evolution? Dinosaurs sprouting feathers was that an abnormality or evolution. Skin pigments are they abnormalities or evolution based on geographic location.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 12, 2008)

Only if the "abnormality" gave a survival advantage and was passed to the offspring during reproduction. Sex has remained constant from the dinosaurs to modern times. And is consistent throughout most complex organisms. Male/Female. I dont buy the evolution argument when it comes to sexual reproduction. This is about human "feelings" (she "feels" like shes a man) which, if biological, come from the brain and could be nurture as much as nature.

Words mean something..this ISNT a pregnant MAN. This is a woman, scientifically provable as such regardless of her "feelings" or surgical procedures. This whole "Pregnant Man" issue is about sexual politics, not fact.

And to answer a different question. If someone has a disease, it means their state of health is not "normal" does it not?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 12, 2008)

Yes, transexual/transgender people are an extreme rarity; natural (meaning no surgeries/hormones/artificial intervention involved) cases of such are even rarer.  So in the strictest, most literal sense, yes, they are "abnormal".  

However, when you use words like "freakshow" and liken their abnormality to a disease as you just did, Archangel, you're saying a helluva lot more than just that they're in the vast minority.  "Freakshow" is a derogatory term, and no rational person would accept it as a mere statement of low frequency.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 12, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Only if the "abnormality" gave a survival advantage



So then some abnormalities do survive after all.



Archangel M said:


> And to answer a different question. If someone has a disease, it means their state of health is not "normal" does it not?



It may be the norm for the disease they have, having a disease is not abnormal, and it is not a mutation. An antibiotic resistant virus is a mutation however.

Being sick is not abnormal health.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 12, 2008)

Disease:
Noun
S: (n) disease (an impairment of health or a condition of abnormal functioning)

Just because something isnt "normal" doesnt mean it should be rejected or punished. However words DO mean something and so does accuracy. Political Correctness allows "feelings" to replace fact.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 12, 2008)

Disease
(1) An *impairment of health* or a *condition of abnormal functioning*. A condition in organisms as a result of viral, fungal or bacterial (virus, bacteria, fungus) attack that threatens or inhibits the life of the organism in question. 

Illness or sickness often characterized by typical patient problems (symptoms) and physical findings (signs). Disruption sequence: The events that occur when a fetus that is developing normally is subjected to a destructive agent such as the rubella (German measles) virus. 

Common Misspellings: diease, desease 

(2) Disease is a term for any condition that *impairs the normal functioning of an organism *or body. Although plants and animals also contract diseases, by far the most significant disease-related areas of interest are those conditions that afflict human beings. They can be divided into three categories: intrinsic, or coming from within the body; extrinsic, or emerging from outside it; and of unknown origin. Until the twentieth century brought changes in the living standards and health care of industrialized societies, extrinsic diseases were the greater threat; today, however, diseases of intrinsic origin are much more familiar. Among them are stress-related diseases, autoimmune disease or disorders, cancers, hereditary diseases, glandular conditions, and conditions resulting from malnutrition. There are also illnesses, such as Alzheimer's disease, whose causes remain essentially unknown.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 12, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Disease:
> Noun
> S: (n) disease (an impairment of health or a condition of abnormal functioning)


 
condition of abnormal functioning not abnormal health, not good health but not abnormal health

health  
1. the general condition of the body or mind with reference to soundness and vigor: good health; poor health.  


A disease 

is an *abnormal condition of an organism that impairs bodily functions*, associated with specific symptoms and signs.

In human beings,"disease" is often used more broadly to refer to any condition that causes extreme pain, dysfunction, distress, social problems, and/or death to the person afflicted, or similar problems for those in contact with the person. In this broader sense, it sometimes includes injuries, disabilities, disorders, syndromes, infections, isolated symptoms, deviant behaviors, and atypical variations of structure and function, while in other contexts and for other purposes these may be considered distinguishable categories


but then this is now getting into semantics rather silly and off post.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 12, 2008)

Not so silly that we cant have a last word contest though huh? 


health 
1. the general condition of the body or mind with reference to *soundness and vigor*: good health; poor health. 

All things being NORMAL..you have good health. Abnormalities such as disease that impair bodily function result in bad health. Or at least impaired health where you can live a somewhat normal life but with impairment.

To bring it back around. This womans issue is not a health issue.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 12, 2008)

When you guys are done cherry-picking dictionary definitions, an actual discussion would be entertaining.  Til then, ta-tah.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 12, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Not so silly that we cant have a last word contest though huh?
> 
> 
> health
> ...


 
ok you win, if that what it takes to put this to rest.

The next time I have a cold or the flu I will say I have abnormal health.

Possibly it should be a college course I mean there is Abnormal Psychology why not Abnormal Health 

And even I am now scratching my head (abnoramally) trying to figure out how this got here from "Thomas the Pregnant Man" and I am in part responsible for getting it here.


----------



## Nolerama (Jun 12, 2008)

If a couple wants to have a baby, then what's wrong with it?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 12, 2008)

Thread is mis-titled

thomas isnt a man.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 12, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Thread is mis-titled
> 
> thomas isnt a man.


 

 Genitalia doesn't define what a man is. Thomas is probably more of a man than many I can think of.


----------

