The pregnant man is happy to be pregnant again.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27703442/wid/1191 5773/?gt1=43001

That's nice I guess. But I am sorry, this person is not physically a "man"...if you have eggs, a uterus and you are still using them...you are biologically a female and doing those female things.  I am kind of annoyed that they are sensationalizing this...like they are breaking all barriers or something. In reality, I could be a "pregnant man" too if I cut off my breasts, took enough hormones and grew a beard. 

Call it what it is...a trans-gender female (male) who wants to be a man, but who still wants to utilize her/his female goodies for reproduction.

It's all so confusing.

Mentally he is a man, that's fine

Preface:  Two members of my church are transgendered.  They are salt of the earth people and I love them and I wish they didn't have such a difficult time in our society, down to things like which bathroom they're allowed to use at work -- things we never think twice about.  I wish people weren't so scared of ambiguity or change or whatever.

Question:  If this man really is mentally a man, then the surprising thing is that he's willing to use his uterus to grow a baby, to have female hormones flooding his system, etc.  That's what makes me think that this person might have a confused gender identity.  But that's at least partly because I've never encountered a man who was born a man who honestly and sincerely expressed a desire to give birth -- they've always seemed relieved/glad/gleeful that this wasn't something they could be called on to do.  This particular transgendered man can be called on to do it, because he has the physical ability.  And he agrees to do it, that's what's surprising and I think why it gets media attention.  It's an apparent conflict between his expressed identity as a man, and his willingness to 'function as a woman' in this context.

I call him/her a shim. 

I thought he just had the baby.. did he get pregnant again the next day?  Maybe I should read the article..ha

Original Post by jenniferthepennifer:

I call him/her a shim. 

Wow.  Can I call you Judgy McJudgerton?

Have some respect. 

It seems that the problem with this conversation is the suggestion that... Gender is.. permanent. That a man is always a man is always a man and that a woman is always a woman is always a woman.

But one step away from trangendered people are transvestites, whose gender is a bit more fluid than that (so I'm told) and who can go from man to woman to man to woman to man as often as they like.

A friend of mine offers a view of Gender that I think is easily visalizable, which is... imagine Gender and Sexuality as two axes of a graph. Kinsey, what was it.. 40 years ago.. suggested that Sexuality was a spectrum, and generally a fluid spectrum. Some people tend to 'swim' at one side of the spectrum. Some swim at another side. Some go back and forth across the barriers as.. whatever biological need allows.

Add to that the possibility that Gender's like that as well.. and.. you can see that maybe we all have distinct points and... general paths we tend to swim ourselves along this two-dimensional graph. Most of us probably stay along one quadrant, but numerous others switch back and forth among different quadrants.

So, yes, while I agree that it is odd that someone who clearly saw himself more as a man than a woman, enough of a man, in fact, that he spent who knows how much money on hormones and surgery.. would keep his uterus and choose to still bear child as women do. But.. perhaps his gender is more sex than the permanent male/woman dicotomy that it seems people have been talking in so far.. maybe he's just more man than woman but clearly woman sometimes as well.

Which begs the question.. if this is true.. why don't we have a genderless pronoun yet since neither he nor she is really appropriate in this person's situation?

Original Post by yachtracer1977:

Original Post by jenniferthepennifer:

I call him/her a shim. 

Wow.  Can I call you Judgy McJudgerton?

Have some respect. 

Why?  I have a transgender friend who thinks the name is very funny! She's where I got the word from.   Sorry if I offended you.

Original Post by hkellick:

Which begs the question.. if this is true.. why don't we have a genderless pronoun yet since neither he nor she is really appropriate in this person's situation?

hk, i agree with everything you said up to this point.  this person identifies as a man (at least in his public life).  the fact that some of us find that difficult to swallow or see ambiguity in his situation does not change that fact.

if, in fact, there is a need for a genderless personal pronoun, it's not up to unabiguously-gendered commentators and voyeurs to make that determination. 

the guy wants to be called "him" - i'm gonna call him "him."

as for the bathroom question and other technicalities - please.  do we debate the truth of physical disabilities with this argument?  no.  we build accessible bathrooms, ramps, and automatic doors.  we don't ask people to fit the structure; we change the structure to fit the people.

Original Post by hkellick:

Which begs the question.. if this is true.. why don't we have a genderless pronoun yet since neither he nor she is really appropriate in this person's situation?

There is.  A couple actually, such as ze and hir.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hir#Neologisms

 

But, yeah, pg is correct.  For the person in question the correct pronoun would be "him".

But the pronouns that I mentioned tend to be used by transgendered folks who do not identify as either male or female.  I used to have a roommate that was like this.

Original Post by pgeorgian:

the guy wants to be called "him" - i'm gonna call him "him.".

Fair enough.

Honestly, I'm not really sure why this is news at all. Maybe because the idea of an actual pregnant biological male person is amusing to some?

Original Post by trhawley:

OK, I'm ignorant, I'll admit it but how does one determine whether they are a transgendered man or a transgendered woman?  Wouldn't operational reproductive parts figure into that equation somehow?

"Transgendered woman is pregnant for the second time" doesn't get you on Oprah does it.

The surgeries are costly and you have to jump through hoops to get it. Long wait periods, numerous psyche evaluations--it's also a process, not just a single surgery. A transgendered person may be getting hormone treatments for a long period of time before they have the final reassignment surgery, if they elect to have it at all. But in the meantime, they identify and live as the gender they prefer.

And some, as this person seems to, see gender as fluid, rather than either/or. Why do you have to pick being either a man or a woman, if you can have qualities of both?

Original Post by trhawley:

Ok, so a "Transgendered Man"  is someone who identifies themselves as a man even tough their assigned gender at birth based on genitalia was female.  This transgendered man retains his female genitalia and eventual gets pregnant and give birth to a gender assigned female.  Then this transgendered man gets pregnant again. Perhaps he and his wife are hoping for a gender assigned boy this time. 

He has stated that after he had top surgery he felt comfortable enough in his body so he never went through with bottom surgery. When his wife couldn't become pregnant, he decided since he still had his uterus/ovaries that he would try to carry so it would be their child. It worked. 

I don't see what the problem is. The media frenzy should simmer though. If they called it what it was instead of "pregnant man" then perhaps people would stop whining so much. 

"Why do you have to pick being either a man or a woman, if you can have qualities of both?"

You don't.  But being pregant and calling yourself a woman doesn't get you on Oprah.  So if you want to pimp yourself out as a circus sideshow freak call up all the media outlets and say, " Hey, I'm the world's first pregant man.  Come on over and put me on TV."

Original Post by coffincritter:

The surgeries are costly and you have to jump through hoops to get it. Long wait periods, numerous psyche evaluations--it's also a process, not just a single surgery. A transgendered person may be getting hormone treatments for a long period of time before they have the final reassignment surgery, if they elect to have it at all. But in the meantime, they identify and live as the gender they prefer.

And some, as this person seems to, see gender as fluid, rather than either/or. Why do you have to pick being either a man or a woman, if you can have qualities of both?

yeah, i met a transgendered woman (some of you have heard this story before, so - sorry about that) who went through the whole process of "living as a woman" for two years, etc., to qualify for the surgery.  she grew her hair long and wore heels and dresses and carried a purse.  only after the surgery could she really be herself - a skinny, jack-booted, shaved-headed dyke in camo.  the medical system was okay with her being a woman, as long as she was the right kind of woman.

"I don't see what the problem is. The media frenzy should simmer though. If they called it what it was instead of "pregnant man" then perhaps people would stop whining so much. "

This is the whole point.

Original Post by p0nda:

The lie is perpetuated by the media and I think that's probably what I get peeved about. Mentally he is a man, that's fine, but physically - biologically - he is a woman. The headlines of "man gets pregnant" are a fallacy - it's sensationalist (although what in today's media isn't) and is simply not true.

 i'm gonna have to agree with the above. i have an enormous amount of respect for the transgendered community. i believe wholeheartedly that a person can be born in the wrong body when it comes to their gender. but they way these headlines are written it is as if an actual biological man is pregant, which is not the case. i'm happy for them and all, i just don't understand all hype over it. i remember first reading the headline and seeing a picture and going "HUH? WTF?" then reading further and thinking "ohhh...well what's the big deal about that?" 

i felt cheated. i want to see a REAL pregant man! :p

Original Post by trhawley:

"Why do you have to pick being either a man or a woman, if you can have qualities of both?"

You don't.  But being pregant and calling yourself a woman doesn't get you on Oprah.  So if you want to pimp yourself out as a circus sideshow freak call up all the media outlets and say, " Hey, I'm the world's first pregant man.  Come on over and put me on TV."

you're talking about two different things.  he calls himself a man because he's a man.  the media attention is a separate issue.  if that's what you disagree with, say so.

and - so what?  it's a product that people are buying (obviously).  i think jenny craig is stupid and misleading, but as long as people keep buying, the product is going to be out there.

Original Post by hkellick

Which begs the question.. if this is true.. why don't we have a genderless pronoun yet since neither he nor she is really appropriate in this person's situation?

There have been attempts like "hir" and "thon" which don't seem to have caught on outside of radical activist circles. Even the TG's I know refer to themselves as a "he" or "she".

There are also various gender identities like cisgendered(that's most of us) or pangendered (which might be a more accurate term to describe this person, actually). But again, they haven't really caught on

On a side note, since people have mentioned biological men not wanting to give birth. I had a boyfriend, biological male, who once told me he was "resentful" of women because they could give birth and he couldn't.But he kinda had a lot of problems in general, for what it's worth.

Original Post by coffincritter:

Original Post by hkellick

Which begs the question.. if this is true.. why don't we have a genderless pronoun yet since neither he nor she is really appropriate in this person's situation?

 

There have been attempts like "hir" and "thon" which don't seem to have caught on outside of radical activist circles. Even the TG's I know refer to themselves as a "he" or "she".

There are also various gender identities like cisgendered(that's most of us) or pangendered (which might be a more accurate term to describe this person, actually). But again, they haven't really caught on

On a side note, since people have mentioned biological men not wanting to give birth. I had a boyfriend, biological male, who once told me he was "resentful" of women because they could give birth and he couldn't.But he kinda had a lot of problems in general, for what it's worth.

very interesting! 

i can imagine how frustrating it might be, if say, i wished i could impregnate someone ...  (can't imagine it) and a turkey baster just seemed like that much more of a slap in the face

Great post HK.

This passive-aggressive implication that anyone who thinks that this media circus around someone who is biologically a woman giving birth is somehow intolerant and is uncomfortable with transgender people is a shade galling too. Someone with lady parts gave birth to a child. That isn't news. I find this particular man to be an attention seeking media whore (for lack of a better term) - that has nothing to do with my opinions (or lack thereof) about people who were born a different sex. If they were on Jerry Springer instead of Oprah this wouldn't have even made it on to the news radar.

Now if we had a woman who was born as a man giving birth - that would be news.

I thought the whole point of his decision to bear children rested in the fact that his wife couldn't get pregnant? It's pretty easy to imagine him stopping the surgical process to produce some kids for the family, if that's what they want.

It's also fairly easy to imagine going public to make a little dough off the novelty- kids are 'spensive. :)

Good luck to them.