A man who used to be a woman has become Britain\’s first \”male mother\” by giving birth to a son.
The definition of him as a man is subject to a possible correction.
Although he has legally changed his gender to male, the man in question was able to give birth last year because his womb was not removed during the original sex change procedure.
It is possible for transgender men who were born women, who still have functioning ovaries and a uterus, to become pregnant while still identifying and living as men.
We have a word for those with uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes and so on.
Woman.
What the laws say, what the individual says, all very interesting from a sociological point of view. And I\’m certainly perfectly happy with whatever decision anyone wants to come to over such things. No skin off my nose after all.
But it isn\’t just pendantry to insist that at some fundamental level this is not a man that has just given birth.
Tim,
Related to the above:
“Trans men have abortions. Gender queer people have abortions. Two spirit people have abortions. People who do not fit into the box of ‘woman’ have abortions. That’s the reality we live in.”
The deep wisdom of Feministing’s Lori Adelman and gender trendsetter Jos Truitt.
Care in the Community has totally failed hasn’t it?
Anyone stop to ask how the f**k Western society ended up at this point?
But that’s the point isn’t it. Neither “identifying … as” nor “living as” actually makes you one, whatever the law says.
I could identify as a billionaire. Won’t make me one. Living as one won’t just not make me one, it will have the bailiffs, if not the police, round my door.
BTW – wtf is the difference between “queer” and “gay / lesbian”? I’m sure there is some marginal nit-picking point that has been identified to fund yet another irrelevant avenue of sociological navel-gazing (did I mean ‘research’).
“But it isn’t just pendantry to insist that at some fundamental level this is not a man that has just given birth.”
No, it isn’t. But don’t be surprised when – as per David Thompson’s example above – the legions who seemingly inhabit BizzarroWorld turn up to label it ‘hate’…
“Anyone stop to ask how the f**k Western society ended up at this point?”
Me. All the time.
“Two spirit people…”
What?
My link to the Life of Brian seems to have vanished…
So here it is:
Judith: [on Stan’s desire to be a mother] Here! I’ve got an idea: Suppose you agree that he can’t actually have babies, not having a womb – which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans’ – but that he can have the *right* to have babies.
Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother… sister, sorry.
Reg: What’s the *point*?
Francis: What?
Reg: What’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can’t have babies?
Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
Reg: It’s symbolic of his struggle against reality.
Shame the photo atop the article is cropped where it is. Be fascinating to know exactly what equipment”s lurking below the cut.
The mind boggles. Would the request to GFYS be achievable?
North American native people with:
a) Historically – one or more cultural roles which cross sex boundaries.
b) Now – a power-up in Victimhood poker available to LBGT(Q) people with more than 1/32 claimed NAN ancestry.
Oh, and a classic Grun article on the “two spirit” thing.
Surreptitious Evil – “Oh, and a classic Grun article on the “two spirit” thing.”
I love how primary evidence that does not support his, how does one put it, thesis is proof of European homophobia, but evidence that does is just fine and dandy.
Not to mention how the “historical evidence” happens to coincide with the latest lame apologetics for homosexuality among the biologists.
From that bonkers article in the Graun: “Native Americans have often held intersex, androgynous people, feminine males and masculine females in high respect. “
Oh, us too! You only have to look at the pop charts…
@SMFS
Interesting that the writer of the two spirits thesis doesn’t appreciate that Indo/European culture has had little problem with interchangeable roles for what? The past 2000 years? 3000? One of our own great historic figures is a female warrior, Boudicea. Weaving went from being a female dominated craft to male in a couple of generations. Queen Elizabeth I hunted. Try looking at the Hindu pantheon for gender rôle models.
The problem the Amerinds have is not being able to separate the rôle from the gender. The belief a female task requires a female spirit. A male task a male. If we hadn’t abandoned that concept a little after the ice cap retreated, we’d still be living in teepees.
Aside from the procreation, gestation and feeding of infants (the first and last now supplanted by technology to some extent) are there any tasks that are “female” or “male” by nature rather than culture?
And, of course, different cultures or the same culture at different times have varied the sex to which various roles were assigned or allowed.
Further to this thoroughly OT subject, what is it with the dippy hippies & their obsession with N. American primitives?
There’s a guy I know, UK side ( for some strange reason Turkish) who’s a considerable expert on teepees. What I now do not know about this leading edge technological product wouldn’t fill the back of a postage stamp. He can be seriously unedited on the subject.
And technological product is what it is. The result of several thousand years development to provide shelter for nomadic hunters on the Great Plains of the US. Uses easily available raw materials. The poles are dual use as transport aids. The people live in the bottom & smoke meat in the top.
So WTF are there a bunch of hippies living in them up in our Sierra Nevadas? They don’t go anywhere. The nearest bison’s in Madrid Zoo & smoked tofu & lentils’ not in big demand. Without copious dried buffalo dung they’re impossible to heat.
Meanwhile, all around them sit examples of what 5000 years of living in the area have come up with. Ignored.
Tim, you’re a liberal sort of chap, no skin off your nose, and all that.
Do you ever pause to wonder why around 98% of your commenters are, well, strongly of the opposite inclination, shall we say?
apologetics for homosexuality, indeed.
Larry, who are you numbering amongst the 98%?
Can’t say homosexuality bothers me in the slightest as long as it’s not compulsory? Whatever floats your boat. But we are equal opportunity piss takers here. Why should being queer rate an easy ride?
Or is that an expression I’m not supposed to use this week? It’s so hard to keep up.
Bloke In Spain #16
One word answer: Rousseau.
I see 1 a-liberal comment (assuming you don’t take the USian definition of liberal which is anything but) – BiS @ #9, which is clearly extracting the urine.
The rest of us seem to be taking the piss out of the extremely illiberal attitude described in Dave T’s comment at #1.
I particularly liked the bit in the article he linked where not having a space between “trans” and “people” was a hate crime.
Note: “Hate crimes” are beating people up because they are different. Not thinking or saying that their manifest Judean Peoples’ Front tendencies are almost as ridiculous as their insistance that their contrived version of “American” should be adopted as standard English.
C.f. the banning of cartoons, plays or photographs with people (characters, drawings) smoking cigars or cigarettes. I’m surprised “Ceci n’est pas une pipe” hasn’t been destroyed as encouraging the murder of children.
Surreptitious Evil – “Aside from the procreation, gestation and feeding of infants (the first and last now supplanted by technology to some extent) are there any tasks that are “female” or “male” by nature rather than culture?”
I would think that any task that stresses brute strength is going to be masculine and any job that relies on grace is going to be feminine. Nowhere in the world are gay men likely to be over-represented in rugby, or heterosexual women for that matter. While male ballet dancers will probably not be producing a lot of children no matter what the culture says.
“And, of course, different cultures or the same culture at different times have varied the sex to which various roles were assigned or allowed.”
In theory you are right. And a small number of such tasks can be found. But in reality I think the number of such changing roles is statistically tiny and can be safely ignored. I don’t think that there is any such task in Western culture over the past 2000 years. Can you think of one?
“…become pregnant while still identifying and living as men.”
I cannot imagine a greater failure to get the hang of “identifying and living as men”. It’s even worse than disliking sports.