Pregnant MAN hails 'miracle'

[jenks]

Quo me amat, amat et canem meam.

If you're going keep quoting a ridiculous proverb instead of a posting more thoughtful answer, then at least spell it correctly.

[Womble]

I prefer people with cats for just that reason.

Try kicking their cat, and you'll find out there isn't much difference.

[AvatarIII]

Nice try, but i won't wash. You can't separate the two.

yes you can, a don't respect organized religion, but that doesn't change the fact that many followers of organized religion are good stand up citizens, and i do respect their actions

[Jackie]

The man in the article is a very complex individual. First, what he has is called gender dysphoria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_...isorderhttp://

technically this is a mental/personality disorder - that doesn't mean he is insane.

I recall reading other articles on this disorder and if I recall correctly there can be a long range of degree to gender identity. I remember one psychologist that EVERYONE has this disorder to a degree. Women who tend to be dominate could be considered as well as men who are submissive. Girls who are labeled "tom boys" that are "straight" and like men have been diagnosed with this disorder as well as boys who were labeled geek, sissy, ect.

The degree of which a person affected with it would determine if that person would first, recognize the disorder and second, actually go through a physical change to literally become a member of the opposite sex. The man obviously has a significant disorder to actually put himself through surgery, hormone shots and actually risk rejection from friends, family and work.

I recall a case where a man transgendered into a woman. After "coming out" this person was harassed and fired from work, half of the family will no longer talk to him - her. The person 's own father considered his "son" dead and the woman he became a stranger.

I also recall reading that people who actually go through surgery (an estimated small percentage of those affected by the disorder who remain in the closet) actually have to live as a member of the opposite sex for a year before starting transition. It was no easy task for these people. Many of them risked losing their jobs, their friends and their families.

Sexual orientation has absolutely nothing to do with the disorder. Many of the men who became women STAYED with their wives. Some, who lost their wife, ended up in "lesbian" relationships.

The disorder affects more biologically born males than females. No one knows why yet and there has been some effort to study a genetic link...with little results to go on.

I'm trying to understand this man's mental placement. He only kept the uterus and eggs for the sole purpose of having a baby later on. There have been documented cases of fathers who have sympathy labor pains and weight gain when their wives become pregnant...so, I can't say that no man would want to have a baby.

All I can conclude is the drive to have a child must have been huge to make a transgendered person go through painful surgery, which is not covered by any insurance policies, go through weekly deep muscle shots of hormones...many have to give themselves the shots too. Keep organs that most transgendered would want removed. Go public and set yourself up for ridicule...I'm sure there are family members denying their relation to the individual. Just to have a baby.

It incredible just how far the human mind can can stretch and bend and reinvent itself along the way. Makes you re-examine just how you identify yourself.

[smurf]

Nice try, but i won't wash. You can't separate the two.

Quo me amat, amat et canem meam.

Which rather explains why that religious ideal of love the sinner, hate the sin has fallen on fallow ground.

He had the operation ten years ago and I'm pretty sure I read in our local paper (The Oregonian) that he had no intention of having the reproductive organs removed. According to that article, that's pretty common to just have the breasts removed/reduced and get hormone injections. I'm trying to find the article. I'll post it when I find it.

Regardless, I don't have any problem with a homosexual couple having artificial insemination to have a baby. I just think it's ridiculous that there is all this media hype for something that is plainly not a "miracle". Since the person in question quit taking hormones two years ago and his/her hormones went back to normal female levels and he/she still has all the organs required for having a baby, this is no different scientifically than any other artificial insemination.

I'm sure there will be a difference emotionally and socially for the child, and that's something all the hoop-la that the parents have chosen to stir up is only going to make worse as far as I can see.

EDIT: Well, this isn't the article I was thinking of (and it's the one I already posted), but it does show the original operation was ten years ago.

EDIT AGAIN: I can't find the article that says that most sex-change operations are only done on the breasts, so you can take or leave it. However, in this article he claims that he kept his reproductive organs in order to have a child later down the road.

That's what I thought, which is a bit odd IMO.

The Oregon Live is an interesting article. It seems the inaccurate state of the law is the thing which allows this person to call himself a male. Most places are much more insistent on the whole change.
Also interesting is the point that he isn't the first. Just the first to make a big deal - metaphorically, and financially I expect - of it.

Here is the original Advocate article (don't think it's been posted yet). When I first read it, apart from thinking "ha, April Fools!", my reaction originally was that it was quite sweet of him to not have a full operation in order to give his wife children. But then I see she has two grown children already, and so I'm inclined to whip out my cod psychology degree, stroke my imaginary beard, and wonder aloud if the issue isn't actually about not accepting your homosexuality.
Hmm? *stroke, stroke*


ETA: Well, now this is interesting. (last third of the article)
I'll put away the beard, but I think I'll keep the degree for the unit as a whole.

[Womble]

Which rather explains why that religious ideal of love the sinner, hate the sin has fallen on fallow ground.

It's not a "religious" ideal, but a specifically Christian one. And like all other high-sounding phrases, it lacks practical definition. Not unlike jenks' semantic tapdancing.

[smurf]

It's not a "religious" ideal, but a specifically Christian one. And like all other high-sounding phrases, it lacks practical definition. Not unlike jenks' semantic tapdancing.

Well, I'm not surprised it lacks practical definition to you, since for you everything is fairly black and white - love me, and everything about me, or you don't love me at all.*
So for your information; that phrase is making the distinction between the person and their actions - verbal or physical.
Or a person and their dog. After all, if your dog dies, you don't die at the same time.

It's not a wholly Christian concept since it appears in a various forms in most religions - it's very heavily linked to the idea of forgiveness. But to be honest, it isn't a wholly religious concept anyway - it's just always more amusing when laid out like that.


*I'd make comment on the use of the term "high-sounding" and previous posting of a Latin phrase, but the link escapes me right now...

[Womble]

Well, I'm not surprised it lacks practical definition to you, since for you everything is fairly black and white - love me, and everything about me, or you don't love me at all.*
So for your information; that phrase is making the distinction between the person and their actions - verbal or physical.

Distinction between the person and their actions? Is not the person defined by their actions? Do we not judge good people from bad peopl, smart people from stupid people, caring people from indifferent people based on what they do?

Or a person and their dog. After all, if your dog dies, you don't die at the same time.

I suppose not. But try to kick a person's dog and convince them that they should not be angry at you.

It's not a wholly Christian concept since it appears in a various forms in most religions - it's very heavily linked to the idea of forgiveness. But to be honest, it isn't a wholly religious concept anyway - it's just always more amusing when laid out like that.

It is heavily linked to the specifically Christian understanding of sin, of forgiveness and to the demand to love everybody. Broadly similar concepts may exist in a few other religions, but it is actually nowhere near as widespread as people think it is.

*I'd make comment on the use of the term "high-sounding" and previous posting of a Latin phrase, but the link escapes me right now...

I posted it in Latin to make a point, which appears to have escaped the present company. No biggie though.

[jenks]

It essentially means that if you love someone you love everything about them, or all that is theirs. I assume your point is that if you respect someone you respect everything about them including their beliefs, unfortunately it's just not true. If you love someone you don't necessarily love everything about them, or all that is theirs, which is why it's just a ridiculous proverb, like I said.

[spg_1983]

It essentially means that if you love someone you love everything about them, or all that is theirs. I assume your point is that if you respect someone you respect everything about them including their beliefs, unfortunately it's just not true. If you love someone you don't necessarily love everything about them, or all that is theirs, which is why it's just a ridiculous proverb, like I said.

Exactly. Hell, I love my grandfather with all my heart. But I hate some of his beliefs. He is VERY "old fashioned", a bit racist and intolerant about some people, etc. It doesn't make me love him any less, just not like that part of him.

[smurf]

Distinction between the person and their actions? Is not the person defined by their actions? Do we not judge good people from bad peopl, smart people from stupid people, caring people from indifferent people based on what they do?

A person is never just one action, or even one type of action. A person can be one of the most caring and generous people in the world, but only to members of their own race - they're hateful to others. Good or bad person?

For example; I have friends who I like a lot. I respect them greatly. We can waste time having long (drunken) discussions on the deep and meaningful, and the unutterably inane. Once in a blue moon in these discussions they'll say something which causes me to go "what?"

Going by your argument I should either accept their stupid without mention, or disrespect them entirely.

Going by my, and most people's, argument I should make a judgement weighing the person as a whole, against the "what?" moment. Usually this means that the "what?" moment will be disrespected without affect on the longer term friendship. Of course, if they continuously produce "what?" moments, or a "seriously WTF?" moment, then I might give serious thought to reassessing that friendship.


Unless you really are the type of individual who resets their interpersonal relationships on every meeting with another person, no matter how many times you meet them, I believe most people apply value judgements on all actions relative to your experience of that person.

I suppose not. But try to kick a person's dog and convince them that they should not be angry at you.

But being angry about something, does not make you that thing. See the difference?
If I proceed to kick you, are you now a dog? Discuss.

It is heavily linked to the specifically Christian understanding of sin, of forgiveness and to the demand to love everybody. Broadly similar concepts may exist in a few other religions, but it is actually nowhere near as widespread as people think it is.

Replace "sin" with action you disagree with, and "sinner" with person. It has to be remembered that much of what is codified by religions is merely what is generally done to oil the wheels of society.*
It's a disappointing aspect of society that is unable to separate the multitude of the human condition, and rather demands a black and white view of the world.

I posted it in Latin to make a point, which appears to have escaped the present company. No biggie though.

I posted that line to present a snark, but it appears to have made a break for freedom above your head.


*That some of the terminology is unfortunately locked into the mindset of the darkest of dark ages is, for simplicity's sake, neither here nor there.

[shipper hannah]

Distinction between the person and their actions? Is not the person defined by their actions?

which is why we shouldn't judge these people based on appearances. what matters is that they love and support the child. their actions as parents to the child are far more important than their methods of having one.

[jenks]

Looks like this was parodied in South Park '12x05 Eek, A Penis!'

[wolfax]

which is why we shouldn't judge these people based on appearances. what matters is that they love and support the child. their actions as parents to the child are far more important than their methods of having one.

I agree with that ...but he/she (the mother) should decide on a sex...rather than being a mixed gender human