ForumsWEPRAn interesting, if not "disturbing" topic....

47 7601
Mammon
offline
Mammon
62 posts
Nomad

I will not be here for a couple of hours, but I thought I would start this to see what some of your thoughts on this subject are.

I heard a strange thing in the news a while ago. Something along the lines of "first pregnant male". Yeah, freaked me out a bit. Later, after doing some research, I found that this 'male' was actually a female, who had a sex change operation. That does not actually count as being male, in my book. Testes make a male, ovaries make a female, in a simple way to put it.

What is everyone's thought on this? Another thing to think about - are you confused by this topic? Probably not as confused as that he/she's baby will be...

  • 47 Replies
Asherlee
offline
Asherlee
5,001 posts
Shepherd

She is just a transgender person. I think it is incredibly brave of the couple to follow through with a pregnancy. You may see male and female so black and white, but it isn't that way in real life. You have to step outside of such a strong physicalist view and see the deeper part to all of this. Many people feel that they one gender on the outside and another on the inside. In fact, it was VERY common among Native American men. They held them in special regards as having two souls, which was a considered very cool (if you will).

I wish them the best of luck.

Nerdius
offline
Nerdius
420 posts
Nomad

I saw thee thing on Oprah about that transgendered man being pregnant. I think that, like Asherlee said, the couple is VERY brave to go on with the pregnancy. I think that the doctor is also a brave person, because from now on, she could be remembered as "the doctor who delivered a man's baby. To me, the problem is about what the BABY will think about, I think I heard that it is a girl, so I will now refer to her as 'her' she might become a lab experiment for all we know, what with her being born from a man. I think this is a very interesting topic.
May that couple be blessed.

JWE
offline
JWE
111 posts
Nomad

It's impossible to cheat nature without consequences.

Dire Consequences.

Asherlee
offline
Asherlee
5,001 posts
Shepherd

How are they cheating nature?

turkishmaniaca
offline
turkishmaniaca
155 posts
Nomad

What next? I can't stand that. So, a man and a man were dating. One got a sex change. Had a baby? That's against God's theory.

Strop
offline
Strop
10,816 posts
Bard

Oh yes, I know the one.

First off, to expand on the topic of how sex is different from gender, I wrote a brief explanation on this page.

Next, from a medical perspective, when it comes to determining physical "sex", there are several levels:

1) Your sex is defined by your genetic structure. Specifically your sex chromosomes. If you're XY, you're male, if you're XX, you're female. A better way to put this really is "if you have a Y sex chromosome, you're male".

Note, however, that not all people are simply XX or XY. There are various continuums of syndromes and presentations that range from trisomy of sex chromosomes, for example, Klinefelter's syndrome. Note- it affects approximately 1 in every 500 males.

There is also Turner syndrome (one functional X chromosome, second X chromosome is absent/defunct, incidence ~1:2500 live female births), Triple X syndrome (affects ~1:1000 females), (XYY syndrome, which affects ~1:1000 males, although whether this abnormality is in fact a pathology is debatable.

There are other presentations which involve mutations where some cells express one set of chromosomes, and others another (mosaicism).

2) Primary sexual characteristics are generally your gonads and genitals. In general, if you have a penis and testicles, you have male primary sexual characteristics, and if you have mammaries and a vagina, you have female primary sexual characteristics.

However, again, this isn't clear cut- if anything it's less clear cut than the genetics. Specifically one's physical attributes may not match their chromosomal attributes, and when this applies to gonads, this is known as an intersex condition. These include partial and complete hermaphrodites, among others- incidence according to the definition above is approximately 0.018%.

One of the best examples I can think of are those who have Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. These are males (i.e. XY), but some aspect of their endocrine system is such that their bodies do not respond at all to testosterone. The result? The 'erfect' woman: naturally hairless limbs and bodies (but normal head hair), slim hourglass figure, with graceful, refined features, etc. you get the idea. Except...they don't have ovaries, nor a uterus, so they'll never have a period, and they'll never bear children.

It is known that a number of high-profile Hollywood actresses were in face males with AIS. More recently, AIS has been featured on a number of medical shows, including House. Usually, revelation of their true characteristics is rather distressing as for all intents and purposes they're female but are actually male! Identity crisis much?

3) Secondary sexual characteristics are the peripheral features that tend to accompany either sex. For example if you're male, you'll tend to have squarer hips, a more rugged build, a deeper voice, more body hair, and you'll tend to think in certain ways. If you're female, you'll tend to have rounder hips, less body hair (note, not none- women produce testosterone too!), a higher voice, and you'll tend to think/feel in other ways.

It is in distinguishing between primary and secondary sexual characteristics that most people are ignorant. If I had a dollar for every story I've heard of a guy trying to make it with a girl only to discover she was in fact...a shemale, well, I could probably have a nice pub lunch. It is in the domain of secondary sexual characteristics that most teasing and gendered persecution occurs- the conceptions of one's physical attributes directly conferring "manliness" or "feminimity".

All this should demonstrate clearly one thing: that your sex is not as clear cut as most people are taught to think. Male and female are, on all levels, averages and not a complete reality. This is all equally a part of nature, and really, does it have to matter that much? I don't think so.

Strop
offline
Strop
10,816 posts
Bard

People who spout off about "God's law"...take a step back and take a good long look about what you're saying, then have a good long think about how what you've said relates to reality.

Now I'll provide a little more information. The reason for the situation being like this is such:

1) Originally, the parties involved were a 'lesbian couple' i.e. two girls.

2) One of them was also transgendered- they felt to be a male in a female's body. So they had a sex-change operation.

3) The other female is infertile and therefore unable to bear children.

4) Since they had the intention of having kids, the transgendered person retained her (functional) sexual organs. However, everything else is cosmetically male thanks to operations and hormone treatments.

From a perspective of changing nature, the only thing I can think of that might be of concern is how the hormone levels might affect pregnancy, but I'm not aware of any literature that suggests that this constitutes any significant risk. So, for all intents and purposes, it's not asking for trouble.

Megamickel
offline
Megamickel
902 posts
Peasant

Yeah, but things that aren't asking for trouble have a tendency to get it anyways.

I guess if they want to try it, that's cool. To each his (or her?) own. Not up to me to tell them what they can and can't do.

JWE
offline
JWE
111 posts
Nomad

Asherlee, do you really have to ask that question?

The only animal that can change genders "naturally" are some types of frogs. Humans have an operation to get that done, it's not like they magically grow a vagina and a pair of breasts or vice-versa.

What you're born with is your gender, and an operation can't change this. It may make you 'look' like a man but in the inside, you're still 100% female.

And enough with this 'God Theory" of yours, turkishmaniaca. You know that it's impossible for a male who gets a sex change operation done to get a baby, don't you? There body anatomy won't allow that.

kanethebrain
offline
kanethebrain
242 posts
Nomad

Actually, there's a number of species outside of frogs that can change their gender. Many fish and I believe some crustaceans have the ability. Turkeys can undergo parthenogenesis (creating offspring without two parents in a species that normally practices sexual reproduction).

My take on the couple having a child:

I have nothing against people having kids. Heck, I'd like kids someday. However, the parents should (IMHO) also be looking out for the best interests of their child. I don't know what the hormones of the birth mother are doing to the child. If those hormones are potentially harmful, I'll take a dimmer view of the couple choosing to go this route, similar to how I would take a dim view of a mother binge drinking during pregnancy.

If there is no risk to the child, well, congrats to the couple.

I will admit, however, that given the number of unwanted children in the world, and the cost and hassle of having a transgendered person becoming pregent, why the couple didn't adopt? The child will not have biological material from both parents, so it's not that extreme. Couples where one partner is infertile adopt all the time, so I would be interested in seeing why they chose not to go that route.

Also, from my reading of the news stories about this couple, they apparently had to go doctor-hopping before they found a doctor that would go through with the procedure. I'd be interested in seeing why those doctors turned this couple down.

JWE
offline
JWE
111 posts
Nomad

Moral implications, maybe?

Mammon
offline
Mammon
62 posts
Nomad

Asherlee, you may believe that it is just fine and dandy for that couple to go through with this pregnancy, and personally if that is what they wish to do I have nothing against their wishes. However, think of the CHILD. What will that child have to go through? Do not even get me started as to the verbal abuse he will take in school, or the snarled remarks he will continue to receive up until adult hood. Also, imagine trying to explain to that child that his 'daddy' gave birth to him, but his 'daddy' is actually a woman. Try and picture how confusing that will be to a small child.

kanethebrain
offline
kanethebrain
242 posts
Nomad

I don't know if you can make a valid argument that social pressure on the child means they shouldn't have a child. You could make the same argument about homosexual couples adopting or an interracial couple having a child, but we don't see anything wrong with that today.

I still think the medical issues with the pregnancy are enough to give me pause, especially since adoption is a viable alternative.

acdcrocks173
offline
acdcrocks173
83 posts
Nomad

Well he's not really a man, he is a hermapridite so it doesn;t count

Mammon
offline
Mammon
62 posts
Nomad

I know that is not a grand way to put it, but really, why put the child through all that?

But my real point is, imagine trying to get it into the child's head of what has happened. Have you actually seen what the woman who is giving birth to that child looks like? Exactly like a man, and I do not exaggerate. Explaining to that kid about his parents would be something along the lines of "You have a mom and a dad, except the dad gave birth to you... oh yeah, your dad is a woman." That, my friends, is how psychopaths are brought into this world.

Imagine the outlook on life Michael Jackson's children must have. The child of this couple will probably go through things similar to those children.

Showing 1-15 of 47