"Pregnant Man" Due Today
by Heather Koerner on 07/03/2008 at 8:30 AM
If you were watching Oprah or reading People any this past April, chances are you might have heard of Thomas Beatie -- "the pregnant man."
According to Oprah's website, Thomas has the media buzzing, people talking and is making headlines around the world. Not surprising, considering there hasn't been a pregnant man since, well, creation.
But there's a catch, of course. Thomas is not a man.
Thomas was born Tracy. In 2002, Tracy opted to have her breasts surgically removed, her chest reconstructed and began testosterone therapy. Then Tracy moved to have her gender legally changed to male and became Thomas -- all the while keeping her female reproductive organs.
After marrying, Thomas and wife Nancy decided to have children. "Wanting to have a child is neither a male or female desire," Thomas wrote, "but a human desire." It may be a human desire, but it still takes a female body to carry a child. So Thomas stopped the testosterone, returned to a female ovulation cycle and conceived via sperm donation. The baby -- a daughter -- is to be delivered by cesarean section today.
Thomas seems to believe that a pregnancy changes nothing. "I am transgender, legally male and legally married to Nancy," she wrote. "Despite the fact that my belly is growing with a new life inside me, I am stable and confident being the man I am."
Stable and confident, Thomas may be. She may even be "legally male." But the plain, and tragic, truth is that Thomas is not a man. She is a woman who has done many, many things to try to look like a man, but who is still a woman down to every piece of DNA. A "bearded lady," but a lady just the same.
Oprah stated that Thomas' situation brings a "new definition of what diversity means for everybody." But not really. God designed women to bear children -- as they have since Eve -- and Thomas hasn't changed that.
1. Dr. Ransom said the following at 9:22 AM on Jul 3:
Then why, given this relatively simple physiological explanation, does so much of the media insist that this is a "pregnant man"? as if this is some sort of groundbreaking, science-fiction reproductive revolution?
I leave the answer un-stated ...
2. Funke said the following at 11:04 AM on Jul 3:
Because it gets you to click on the link, or buy the newspaper, or stay tuned to the news, Dr. Ransom. ;)
3. Nelson said the following at 11:26 AM on Jul 3:
The definition of a man and woman isn't up to us to redefine. Surgery and media has no authority over reality.
4. b.conley said the following at 11:34 AM on Jul 3:
american society chooses to blur the lines of morality in hopes of changing reality. Only in a atmosphere of defeated morality and mutable standards can the darkness of mans heart be reveled in,and displayed without fear of Godly reproach. Thomas is the end result and flag bearer for the legions that have told themselves in there mind "There is no God". With such a mindset the distortion of natural design is imperative, the falsehoods exponentialized, the truth is lost on them finding no harbor in there hearts or mind crowded out by there own desires and devices of there craven minds.
5. Claire said the following at 12:16 PM on Jul 3:
All of the articles I saw said "pregnant man" - always in quotes. They never state it is a man, they always assert that it is a woman, who is legally a man in this country due to the crazy laws we have. Anyway, they never say that she is, biologically, a man, but only identifies herself that way. However, the media does try to push the envelope (with trusty Oprah by their side) and say that this is just another thing we should tolerate in the ever changing nuclear family.
6. JB said the following at 1:12 PM on Jul 3:
Okay, I think I disagree with the premise of this post. A lot of people are under the impression that "man" and "woman" mean certain well defined things and that you can put every person in the world neatly into one group or the other. This is wrong for two reasons.
First, even taking "man" and "woman" to mean something like "biologically male" or "biologically female," there are a lot of people who don't fit neatly into these categories. As a matter of biological fact, it is not the case that every person who has an XX genotype has female genitalia and breasts. And it is not the case that everyone who is XY has male genitalia and facial hair. How would you categorize an XY individual who has androgen insensitivity and genitals which are not clearly male or female? Or how about an XX individual who has an Sry gene hanging out on some random chromosome and develops male genitalia? Is being biologically male having a Y chromosome, having typically male genitalia (defined by some set of parameters), or something else altogether? I don't think the answer is obvious by any means. And furthermore, I'm unaware of any biblical principle which would illuminate the problem.
Second, "man" and "woman" refer to things other than biological traits. There are social roles and characteristics which tend to be attached to these terms. Different societies give different weights to social and biological factors in determining whether a person is seen as mostly male or mostly female. There are societies in which one's social role completely trumps biology - you're a woman if you act like a woman, no matter that you look like naked. There is a very real sense, I think, in which Thomas Beatie is a man in our society, even if you still want to say that he's "really" a woman. So part of this debate is over mere semantics.
7. Melissa D. said the following at 2:55 PM on Jul 3:
Why didn't the "wife" choose to have the baby?
8. brx said the following at 3:00 PM on Jul 3:
I like the freudian (slip?) way Beatie states it:
"...I am stable and confident being the man I am."
- not being "a man", but being the 'man' Beatie is. Beatie knows she is a woman but wants to have some characteristics of a male. I feel compassion for her because that's such a common way of dealing with a serious, gender related trauma experience.
Grace & peace to her.
9. Denisha said the following at 3:39 PM on Jul 3:
When I first heard mention of a "pregent man", I knew that it was a woman who transgendered. I knew it!
I feel sorry for the child born, she is going to be so confused about gender when she grows up.
God why do we always want to act like we are you? :(
10. Claire said the following at 3:43 PM on Jul 3:
"Why didn't the 'wife' choose to have the baby?"
An article I read states she had a hysterectomy.
11. L said the following at 5:10 PM on Jul 3:
Anyone else see "Life of Bryan"?
"Well, we can all agree on his RIGHT to have babies..."
12. mom of four said the following at 10:08 PM on Jul 3:
These are all great comments, and I agree completely. So I am not dissenting when I say, now that I have a close Christian friend who has just told me he is homosexual, I am seeing all this "alternative sin" through new lenses. It is wrong, clearly, but what does it look like to love someone in obvious sin?? (Not that we're called to love this TV interviewee we'll never meet, but what about the one in your community?) I don't have answers... I wish I could hear what Christ would privately say to Thomas.
13. Michelle said the following at 1:22 AM on Jul 4:
I personally find the whole thing atrocious - that our country and the world looks at this and doesn't bat an eyelash. How did we get here?
14. Vonda said the following at 6:10 AM on Jul 4:
I was very interested to see what sort of questions Oprah would ask this so called man who really is still a woman trying to look like a man,so I watched the show and was not dissappointed.But I do wish someone who is prominent in the Tv world would actually come out and say she is a transgender persson.not a man.Even if Tracy had not had her chest reconstructed to be like a man's and looked more feminine than manly I would still have a lot of pity for the poor child when it gets old enough to realize how confused it's mother was and still is probably.GOD help them.Please.
15. tito said the following at 7:55 AM on Jul 4:
poor girl
16. Bethany said the following at 9:43 AM on Jul 4:
Thanks for the wise, and clear-eyed perspective on this yet again (Boundless' first post on this was great, too)! Thank you for maintaining the feminine pronoun and not letting divisions (that GOD made) be blurred.
17. McSquid said the following at 10:15 AM on Jul 4:
I don't really care about the birth per se, but the biological consequences--like did Thomas change his testosterone regimen to help support the health of the fetus?
18. Nancy said the following at 11:12 AM on Jul 4:
All this announced on 'American Independence Day' - SOME PEOPLE ARE TRULEY SHOWING THEIR INDEPENDENCE FROM GOD...SO SAD & PITIFUL THAT IT'S BECOMING THE NORM TO SEE SUCH WIERD BEHAVIOUR BECAUSE OF A LACK OF SHAME PSALM 2
19. donald said the following at 2:49 PM on Jul 4:
first they are two women in a relaitionshp!then they decide to have a child? pray for a society that thinks this is o.k.God says it is not.turn yourself into a man and have a baby. why?????
20. James P said the following at 8:20 AM on Jul 5:
Thank you for posting this... another media lie that is used to bring more acceptance to this really bad idea. Sick, sad, sorry. I'm sorry... :(
21. Leah said the following at 9:24 PM on Jul 5:
Yeah, the wife already has two much older daughters from a previous marriage and has had a hysterectomy.
I blogged on this back in March or April. It disgusted me that anyone could fool themselves into believing that someone with a vagina, uterus and whose NATURAL hormone is oestrogen could POSSIBLY be a man. Did none of these people do high school science??
22. heather said the following at 9:33 PM on Jul 6:
I really really hope that parents are explaining all this to their children. Think about how confused they were when they heard the sound bites or listened to Oprah's philosophizing. It all makes me wonder if I really want to bring kids into this increasingly bizarre world...
23. pastor hendricks said the following at 12:20 AM on Jul 7:
Tragic, but true!! Tracy may seem like Thomas to the world, but before her Creator she is still "female". Child-bearing is God's gift & one who "plays" with this, invites God's wrath!! Read Gen 6.. the "wickedness", Its true that Christ's coming will be characterised "as it was in the days of Noah". Keep your eyes lifted up, our redemption draweth nigh!!!
24. Jacqueline said the following at 8:36 PM on Jul 7:
Are all of you forgetting that only God knows Thomas' heart? No one here knows the agony and confusion of what he has been through his entire life. Why are you judging him? God is merciful and only He knows the depths of Thomas' heart.
25. Leah said the following at 7:19 PM on Jul 8:
Jacqueline, I don't think anyone here is condemning Thomas to hell. We're only saying what (s)he did was wrong. And we're perfectly allowed to say that. Just like I can say that lying or murdering is wrong.
Heather, sometimes I think the exact same thing! But you know what? Then I realise that the more sound, bible-believing right-wing Christians have kids, the more sound, bible-believing Christians will be around in 30 or 40 years time! Boundless blogged about this not long ago: lefties and liberals are having fewer and fewer children. If we have more, we can out-breed them ;)
26. Louise said the following at 9:58 PM on Jul 8:
I would think evengelical Christians would consider the impending birth of an infant to be positive event.
If you don't like or approve of the parents, well so be it.
Is it the future child's fault?
Think about the above folks.
Who knows, some day you might all be begging for understanding.
If you do not grant it now, will you receive it later, when you need it?
Louise
27. Leah said the following at 8:39 PM on Jul 9:
Louise said I would think evengelical Christians would consider the impending birth of an infant to be positive event.
If you don't like or approve of the parents, well so be it.
Is it the future child's fault?
Uhh... did any of us SAY it was the child's fault??
The child is not the topic of discussion here. You brought her into it, not us. We're talking about the father/mother.
28. N from Alberta Canada said the following at 10:27 AM on Aug 1:
I found the whole thing disturbing and believe, firmly, that God never intended for such things. I also thought (and I hate to be all Apocolyptic Now about it) it's a sign of the end of days...anyhow, I digress.
What about the child? What effect will this have on their daughter and her socialization? No one is thinking about their child in all this media frenzy...it's sad...
29. Lynne said the following at 11:54 AM on Aug 1:
N from Alberta,
Actually, I believe there are thinking about the child. And what they are thinking is what really worries me....things like, what a fortunate child to grow up in a house: so open and accepting, or not bound by archaic gender roles, a child who will appreciate individuality and not constrained by gender and society norms.
The fact that many do not see this as a problem for the kid is the real problem
30. a Christian woman and mother said the following at 9:03 PM on Nov 13:
I am wondering why the people wanting to break the rules and change the definitions to fit their desires are the only people who scream out and fight for the changes?
Why is it that those of us who know a mother can only be a woman do not stand up and say "IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DEFINED BY NATURE!"???
I would like to point out that a woman without breast is still a woman as many cancer survivors would agree to.
I would also like to point out that according to an article I read this couple was listed as parent/parent... there is no mother and there is no father... because they complained after being told that the person who gave birth would be listed as the mother.
I do not want to be listed on the next birth certificate as parent... I am a mother.
Like it or not, the squeaky wheels who want to change definitions are going to fight and fight for change and soon we will not have the right to be listed on our child's birth certificate as the mother or father we are by nature.
By the way...
This is not only going to be a problem to the innocent child born into this mess... It is a problem for all of us. I have already had to explain to my innocent 5 year old that this "man" is a woman.