Postmodern Biology
by
Tom Neven
on Apr 7, 2008 at 8:43 AM
One of my earliest memories was as a 4- or 5-year-old fantasizing each night about going off to Bunny Land to play with all my bunny friends. I even imagined that one day I would turn into a bunny like them. That fantasy was short-lived, most especially after I told my older brothers about it. (There's nothing like merciless teasing to disabuse a child of a fantasy.) But imagine that I had not outgrown this belief. What if I had taken it into adulthood and, once of proper legal age, asked a surgeon to sculpt my appearance to look as bunnylike as possible. Would that therefore make me a bunny?
Of course not. Even if the surgeon managed to give me bunny ears and a fluffy tail, I'd be no more a bunny than I would be a gnu or any other creature other than a human male. We can't simply change who we are based on our personal preferences, even if those preferences are backed up by surgery.
You'd never know that from recent breathless news reports about the pregnant "man." Thomas Beatie was born 34 years ago as a female named Tracy and had all the sexual organs to show for it. She grew up as a female, albeit a tomboyish one. She dated boys and was even named a finalist for Miss Hawaii Teen USA. But Beatie says that after puberty she felt her body was betraying her. In her early 20s, she says she "discovered" her "true" sexual identity, so 10 years ago she had a double mastectomy and hormonal injections to grow facial hair. ("His" present beard is quite thin and wispy, kind of like those you see on 15-year-old boys who imagine their peach fuzz makes then an adult.)
Significantly, Beatie kept her female reproductive organs. And she is now pregnant, thanks to artificial insemination. The Advocate, a magazine that covers issues of interest to homosexuals and so-called transgendered people, reported, "The Beatie pregnancy is simply the Beaties' way of using the reproductive choices that were available to them. Most Americans can understand that."
Beatie defends the decision by saying she has a "right to have a biological child." Never mind that. The question is whether she's fit to be a parent, set aside for the moment the confusing world the poor child is going to be brought into, having a mom and a "dad" who gave it birth.
This is the perfect postmodern moment. There is no fixed meaning to anything anymore, even biology. Beatie's "maleness" is strictly the result of a scalpel and artificial hormones, and at the most basic genetic level she is female. Truth is never considered; it's all about rights and personal choices. And the press is a willing accomplice in this postmodern confusion. Who are they, after all, to question basic issues of biological truth? If Beatie wants to call herself "male," who are they to dispute it? Even if the pregnancy is the product of a sperm bank and a glorified turkey baster, no less a cultural authority than Oprah has certified it as a "miracle."
This is reminiscent of the wonderfully ironic academic hoax carried out by Alan Sokal, a theoretical physicist at New York University. He was tired of the nonsense he found on college campuses, so as a joke he wrote an academic paper called "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity." He submitted it for publication, and the gullible journal Social Text published it.
It was complete nonsense from first to last. Sokal first established his postmodernist bona fides by denouncing scientists for continuing to cling to the "dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook." He added that science had already demonstrated that physical reality was "at bottom a social and linguistic construct"; in other words, reality is merely one man's opinion of how the universe works. And like a true postmodernist, Sokal inevitably brought in the political. He wrote, "The content and methodology of postmodern science thus provide powerful intellectual support for the progressive political project, understood in its broadest sense: the transgressing of boundaries, the breaking down of barriers, the radical democratization of all aspects of social, economic, political and cultural life."
Sokal revealed the hoax in an article published concurrently in another journal, Lingua Franca. He explained that his Social Text article had been “liberally salted with nonsense," and in his opinion it was published only because "(a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions." To say the least, the editors of Social Text should have been embarrassed, but they were unapologetic. In fact, they accused Sokal of being unethical.
Oprah and all the other media who are buying into Beatie's postmodern biology ought to be equally embarrassed. But I'm not waiting for any of them to blush. They are so thoroughly immersed in the postmodern worldview that they're incapable of seeing nonsense for what it is.
I have to say, too, that I feel a bit miffed. I, apparently, was born too soon. So if you'll excuse me, I'm going to look for a plastic surgeon who specializes in fluffy tails.
1. Louise had the following to say on Apr 7 at 9:01 AM:
This "pregnant man" story is a little bit too much for even me, a devoted liberal secular humanist.
I don't want to judge however, beyond stating that it is a strange scenario.
I wish everyone involved in this case the very best of luck.
They are all going to need it.
2. single certain girl had the following to say on Apr 7 at 9:02 AM:
thank you, Thank You, THANK YOU! my roommate and i were just talking about this last night.... how everyone's going on and on about this 'pregnant man,' yet, SHE'S NOT A MAN!!!! i feel like it's the emperor's new clothes... doesn't anybody else see this? she's a woman with no chest and a beard! sigh...
3. Leah had the following to say on Apr 7 at 9:27 AM:
Wow. I blogged about this yesterday. As I concluded...
"It's not really a man claiming his desire to carry a child is a human rather than strictly female one- it's a woman not wanting to admit that her desire to carry a child is evidence of her femininity!
Of course (s)he tried to brush it off, saying that being pregnant made him/her feel no more feminine- "it's not like I have the urge to shave my legs or anything" (as if that's an innate female need)- but that (s)he was still "definitely a man".
YOU HAVE A UTERUS AND PRODUCE FEMALE HORMONES. YOU'RE A WOMAN."
4. Christina (in green) had the following to say on Apr 7 at 9:51 AM:
I left church this weekend feeling very wary of the world for some reason.
And I saw this at the bottom of a magazine as I was getting some lunch from the grocery store.
I'm ready for the end of the world to happen >.<
5. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) had the following to say on Apr 7 at 10:21 AM:
I'm gonna reserve judgment here, because it's clear that sexual identity is an extremely complex issue. I don't think anyone who isn't transgendered really know what it's like, so I don't know what is going through Mr(s). Beatie's brain.
My question for you, Tom (and everyone else), is what do you think should be done with Beatie's unborn baby?
6. Vincenzo had the following to say on Apr 7 at 10:32 AM:
You are correct Tom, Beatie is still a woman at the genetic level, with all of the chromosomes still there. It is such a shame how Satan deceives people into believe such lies about themselves.
7. Jade had the following to say on Apr 7 at 10:42 AM:
Thank you *so much* for addressing this (I've been waiting for it to pop up on here). My coworkers were discussing this a couple days ago and I really felt that this fuss is totally undeserved. So a woman got pregnant and is giving birth, it's a woman, folks! End of story. If you checked her DNA, surely it would also reveal her gender.
8. Jane had the following to say on Apr 7 at 10:55 AM:
as a person with numerous transgendered friends, im reserving judgment on this one. but none of the people i know who are still genetically female would ever, EVER think to get pregnant.
9. Amir Larijani had the following to say on Apr 7 at 10:57 AM:
single certain girl says:
Yeah, just like those East German women's track teams of the 1970s. ;)
Of course, it could be that Beatie is just wanting to be a Presbyterian Church USA minister! If that is the case, then she/he/whatever is on his/her/its way! ;)
10. PLH had the following to say on Apr 7 at 11:03 AM:
This is a frightening case on many levels, although I can't say that I'm shocked. It's more the logical outgrowth of the separation of reproduction and marital intercourse in marriage. If married couples can have IVF, single women have babies through sperm banks, married couples can get divorced, Christians can use contraception, etc then why shouldn't people be able to manipulate their sexual identity and reproductive capacity as they choose? I think Christians need to get back to proclaiming that sexual intercourse reflects the union between a man and wife-a union that is permanent and that manipulating fertility and sexuality violates God's plan for human sexuality. True freedom comes only from submitting to God's design for sexuality.
11. Leah had the following to say on Apr 7 at 11:05 AM:
Andrew R- well I think it's clear. Beatie is a pregnant woman who is going to give birth to a baby. Obviously, she should go through with the pregnancy and keep it. Just like any other artificially inseminated lesbian would. (oooh, now that throws a new twist on things, doesn't it?? Sorry, not mocking you at all, just a realisation I just came to.)
12. Katie B had the following to say on Apr 7 at 11:14 AM:
I think that this case is just plain weird before anything else. I agree with Andrew R, that this is too complex an issue to complex to pass judgement. As sad as this situation is, it is one person trying to reconcile their natural desires with their confused identity, confusion which is prevelent for us as fallen beings, not restricted to the weird cases. We do the same thing in our own ways on our own issues. While we may know what is right by God's design, it makes no sense for us to judge those who dont know by the same standards as those who do, they need grace before rules.
Also, my personal opinion is that it is just common respect to refer to people the way they see themselves.
13. Jo had the following to say on Apr 7 at 11:36 AM:
I know very little about the transgender issues, but the little I do know suggests to me that Andew is right: the issues are complex.
However, in my opinion this whole 'pregnant man' thing is not complex. This person is biologically a woman, wants us to see her and refer to her as a man, yet is undertaking the most obviously and exclusively female task she could possibly have chosen. That's not right. Either you're a woman or you're a man, you cannot have it both ways.
14. single certain girl had the following to say on Apr 7 at 11:57 AM:
good point, andrew. i have never struggled with gender issues (at least not to the level that thomas/tina has) so i can't judge. however, i do think that vincenzo brings up a good point... satan has deceived thomas/tina into thinking that the best way to deal with his/her struggles is to have surgery and 'become a man.' it's sad, i think.
15. Ted Slater had the following to say on Apr 7 at 12:10 PM:
U.S. President Abraham Lincoln would ask people, "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?" Their response was often "five." He would smile and reply to them, "No, it's just four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."
If Lincoln were alive right now, he might ask, "What is the sex of a woman if you give her male hormones and call her a man?" Like the gullible people of his day, I suspect many would reply, without much thought at all, "male."
16. Altovise had the following to say on Apr 7 at 1:46 PM:
This news about the pregnant "man" made me very sad. How far will this world go? I think the world purposely invents new ways to go against God's natural order.
I am so glad that this topic was addressed. Nothing has been said at church about it. Everyone has been very hush-hush about it.
I will pray for the baby (if God allows it to come into the world). I pray that the baby comes to know God and the truth about the unnatural state of its family. I encourage others to pray for the child. This baby will need our prayers just as much as a baby whose parents are on drugs, or an abused child needs prayer.
17. Don had the following to say on Apr 7 at 3:51 PM:
I saw an advertisement for this story on Oprah the other day when I was watching TV. I was intrigued at first, but then realized it was a transgendered woman who was pregnant, and not really a man. I quickly ceased being intrigued or impressed and moved on.
Thomas may see himself as a man, but does not have any of the biological things that would make him a man. He still has female reproductive organs. In my mind, Arnold Schwarzenegger is still the first human man to be "pregnant," even if it was just fictionally.
18. Jethro had the following to say on Apr 7 at 3:56 PM:
Tom,
Quote "Beatie defends the decision by saying she has a "right to have a biological child." Never mind that. The question is whether she's fit to be a parent"
What determines whether anyone is fit to be a parent? More to the point, who determines it?
19. Kelly had the following to say on Apr 7 at 6:27 PM:
When I first heard of this, I was quite excited over the idea that a man could carry a child. (No doubt many of you will disagree with me but that's a topic for another day!)
When I found out that he was actually a woman, I was quite disappointed and wondered what all the fuss was about.
20. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) had the following to say on Apr 7 at 8:24 PM:
"This baby will need our prayers just as much as a baby whose parents are on drugs, or an abused child needs prayer."
Seriously? You are seriously equating two loving parents- one of them who is transgendered- with parents who neglect and beat their children?
May I ask why?
21. Lissa had the following to say on Apr 8 at 12:26 AM:
Thanks so much for writing this! As a Christian on a secular, liberal university campus, I'm so sick of hearing all the post-modern humanist crap. I am very thankful, no, blessed, to have you guys as a sources of balance in my life.
I love the person who said it's like the emperor's new clothes. Society expects us to support every new crazy thing that comes along without question and not only to accept it, but to celebrate it. And any judgement in such a situation is just "hate speech". I'm sorry, but I think I can love and respect a person and still think they're completely wrong or crazy. (Love the sinner, hate the sin) This whole "don't judge" thing has gone too far in my opinion, and i think it's going to be damaging in the long run, turning us into a society with no values and nothing to stand up for anymore, (except for against anyone who "judges").
I understand the need to be loving and forgiving, but I don't think that has to be incompatable with moral judgement....especially from a Christian perspective. Come on, people! If no one else in the world know's what the heck is going on, at least we should have some sort of moral compass!
And you are completely right about all the excitement over this pregnant person. It is the genetics (XX) which make a person a female (which this person clearly has) and not the outward appearance or ratio of hormones. What is so "miraculous", as Oprah would say, of a person with a uterus having a baby? It would be more appropriate to say it is "miraculous" for a woman to grow hair and muscle and do various other things to look like a man (although it's hardly a "miracle" as it clearly took a lot of effort, surgery, etc. to get to that point.) Do people even know what the world "miracle" means? I think the word they're looking for in this case is confused.
Anyway, as bizzare as the story is, I still feel for this woman, her partner, and her unborn baby. Clearly she has issues with her gender identity (among other things), and while it's a little scary to me that she wants to bring a baby into the world as confused as she is, I will try to remember to pray for her and for the people around her to respond to her situation not out of hate or fear but with love.
22. Leah had the following to say on Apr 8 at 7:53 AM:
Katie- this person is quite clearly a woman which means, logically, we'd refer to her as her/she rather than him/he. She is a woman. It's fact. She was born a female, she has female organs, her body produces female hormones, there is no way around it.
Basic english: her/she are the female pronouns, him/he are male pronouns. I'm not calling a woman by a male pronoun. The furthest I'll go is to concede that she claims she's a male by writing "(s)he".
23. Carrie Lea had the following to say on Apr 8 at 1:57 PM:
Forget the pregnant "man." Isn't anyone impressed with the man whose seed was able to impregnate another "man"?
:P
24. Katie B had the following to say on Apr 8 at 2:16 PM:
A professor of mine shared a story from when he was pastoring a church.
A person came to his church who was a transvestite, born a man, lived as a woman named Sarah (Ichanged the name), and concidered himself a woman. When he was about to go into the operating room to have the sex change surgery, he heard God say to him "Sarah, don't do this, I have other plans for you" so he called off the surgery and started going to church, though still as a woman, and not adressing the underlying issues. since there was no resolution he tried again to have the surgery, again God said the same thing. He gave his life to Christ and became a member of the church, and even showing the fruit and gifts of the holy spirit... still dressing and acting as a woman and calling himself 'sarah'. As the underlying issues got adressed, he rediscovered his masculinity and now is a youth pastor. One of the questions people asked him was: why would God call you sarah? when your real name is bryan*?
He answers: if God had called me anything else at that time, I wouldnt have recognized it and wouldnt have listened. (the church also accepted him and treated him as a woman)
My point being, gender and sexual identity is complicated, and for someone who is struggling, anatomy only makes things more confusing. God meets people where they are and who they are to themselves. Because to this person, he is a man, and the fact that he has a uterus is inconsequential. Who are we to say that they must identify as who God created them to be, before they have the relationship with Christ to bring about that change? treating people that way will build unnessearily arriers that will make their recieving of the love of God from us harder.
25. Peter Wells had the following to say on Apr 8 at 6:18 PM:
Well, either there was an error when I made my last post (not likely), or I've had my first censor on boundless! woo! Can I ask why, Tom (or perhaps Ted, seeing as you're the editor)? Is the reality that gender and sexuality don't fit in neat little boxes a little inconvenient? I was actually interested in wrestling with the reality of scientific perspective vs. the Biblical message.
Of course, on the off chance that you're having technical issues, let me know and I'll pose my conundrum again for you.
Shalom.
26. Chris had the following to say on Apr 8 at 6:54 PM:
Pregnant "man" is actually a transgendered woman who didn't have her reproductive organs removed. Yawn. Big deal. Move on.
Of course, the fact that Oprah was in any way, shape, or form involved with it means we should have all ignored it. What is it with the cult of personality around her?
27. obewan had the following to say on Apr 9 at 11:11 AM:
The blog said:
“The Advocate, a magazine that covers issues of interest to homosexuals and so-called transgendered people…”
To be fair, some of the “so-called” transgendered people were born with a legitimate birth defect. If they experience gender confusion at some point in their life or had to have surgery to remove part of their anatomy not needed by their “dominant gender” then we need to meet them with compassion and understanding rather than suspicion and fear.
I for one won’t be walking up to any transgendered people and saying: “Excuse me, were you born with a legitimate birth defect, or do you just have psychological issues.”
Unfortunately, this recent case has done those people a great disservice in terms of promoting greater tolerance and understanding.
28. Tom Neven had the following to say on Apr 9 at 3:48 PM:
Several people have commented on the fact that there are some genuine cases of biological abnormalities that result in pseudohermaphroditism, Klinefelter syndrome or androgen insensitivity syndrome. Notably, all are considered harmful genetic mutations or abnormalities. Some don't manifest themselves until puberty. Most important, all are relatively rare.
But the Beatie case is none of these, and this is true of most other cases of "gender confusion." Those cases are psychological, not physical.
The question is, should society indulge (indeed, celebrate) every psychological whim? That was the point of my opening anecdote. If I had radical surgery and insisted everyone call me Mr. Bunny, don't you think that would cause some eye-rolls? Would the press write such fawning stories? Or say someone thought he was Napoleon, had a few inches hacked off his height and walked about in a 19th century French field marshal's uniform. Would we all just go along with it and address him as "Mon Général"? Of course not. So why is it suddenly different when it comes to people and their sexual identities? Why do they get a pass from the culture at large?
No one is saying Beatie should be mocked, and I did not mock her in my piece. My concern is more with the reception she's received than with Beatie herself.
29. TN1 had the following to say on Apr 9 at 6:20 PM:
What I found most intriguing about this "man"'s story is how much her body has changed as a result of her testerone hormone therapy. I mean her frame barely even looked feminine to me. Her arms looked thicker, like a man's. She must have responded quite well to the treatment. I'm always fascinated at how, despite what we think about what constitutes gender, we can always tell by just a glance whether a person is a man or a woman. Men and women have obvious differences in shape and stature, and even children are able to notice the difference if they see a person from far away. But Beattie's body seems to have changed A LOT. I remember watching a documentary on TLC about transexuals and that some men even undergo facial surgery to soften their brow ridges and other procedures to produce and more delicate, feminine face.
And what does all of this amount to in the end? These people are wholy embracing a caricature of what it takes to be a man or a woman. They think that being a woman means looking softer, swaying your hips, wearing skirts and high heels, talking with a higher pitched voice, etc. Or being masculine means walking with an exaggerated gait, shaving facial hair, wearing pants and typical male clothing, keeping their hair short, etc. They can't and won't know what it's like to BE wholy masculine or feminine from the inside out.
30. Samuel Jones had the following to say on Apr 10 at 10:45 AM:
I think it says a lot about the "Postmodern" Media, that they are consistently, unabashedly and (in)credibly saying, that she is a man. Just disgusting and ridiculous. Heaven help us!