to be confused? Transgender pregnancy.

[troisgarcons]

In the papers today.

In short, a woman commences the transgender process into a man. She becomes/lives as a gay man. But keeps her womb and overies. Stops taking her medication, gets pregnant (deliberately) by her gay male lover.

I'm a bit lost here. Clearly she isn't a man? And I have to ask where the gay male boyfriend thought the was popping his sausage?

This makes for interesting reading. As for 'intersex' people, I can't remember of the top of my head, but the numbers are a lot higher than you would think.

To some people they alway wanted to be a parent, many gay couples ( male and female) want a baby, they use surrogates or sperm doners.

If biologocally it is possible for a transgender couple to have a baby that is gentically thires without using 3rd party how can it be wrong.

I see no diffeence

Logically that makes sense. But it is confusing when someone says they think they are a man and then decide to get pregnant and give birth - a clear female act.

I don't thinkthat anyone who has struggled to get pregnant (or is infertile) and would find it difficult to be considered for adoption, would think that strange.

Most people who really want a child, would go through anything, necessary.

We had a thread on here recently that was started by an asexual poster. I looked at a few websites at the time and it seems as if the number of asexual women may be almost as high as the number of lesbian women.

It is strange how we now perceive that all same sex couples prior to advances in gay rights must have been gay. Presumably many of them were asexual or sexual but preferred to live with a friend than a lover. But our society has now moved towards defining everyone's relationships by their sexuality. It is a new form of narrowness.

As for the original point of this thread, the transgender issue, we've had a lot of threads on here about it. I don't feel any clearer on this. We live in a society that still segregates by gender in various situations. Unlike most forms of segregation, most people want us to carry on segregating by gender, on hospital wards, in showering facilities, in changing rooms, in prisons and so on. So it seems quite paradoxical that we've now decided gender is up to the individual to decide. If it is down to personal choice and based on a feeling in someone's mind - spiritual as somebody on here described it, I don't see the point of having segregated facilities anymore. I'm not even sure what that feeling is meant to feel like in my head, but I know what having a womb that does things is like, and I know I share that experience with other people. But that kind of thing now isn't a reason for having segregated facilities, but the feeling is.

It was me that brought up that when some societies were more spiritual, we didn't box people off, as easily.

The facilities didn't exist then, you had a medicine tent and went into the forrest, so yours is a different point.

Bisexuality is well documented throughout history, even in some later works, Shakespeare, for example..

You see I don't care if peopel self define as male, female, third sex or whatever. But I do still want segregated facilities and I don't want anyone who doesn't have the appropriate male/female body to use them. So in the showers at the leisure centre I go to,I don't care if you define as a woman, if you have a penis I don't want you to use the showers there.

And I guess this is where the self definition thing breaks down. Precisely because it does have an impact on other people.

We live in a society that still segregates by gender in various situations.

Yes, and that's the only reason why there's such confusion around the concepts of intersex, transgender and all the other between-the-poles states. As you say, most people prefer to think binary because it makes life easier for most people. That's just a social construct, though.

I was aware of the existence of intersex children from a very young age (my mother had a gabby midwife) - as some posted earlier, they were usually dressed as whatever the parents thought suitable and left to work it out when they reached puberty

It's possible, and not all that unusual, for an apparently obvious man or woman to have the 'wrong' chromosomes. You wouldn't even know unless a medical procedure showed it.

I lived in Brazil, which is one of the countries with a large and public transgender population. There are trans newsreaders, nobody bats an eye. All the same, they have very high suicide rates. I agree, non-polar sex/gender is one of the issues that needs to be brought out of the shadows.

I didn't mention bisexuality. I'm not sure what it has to do with my post.

I can see what two spirited people have got to do with people who don't feel themselves to be either male or female, and people who feel themselves to be both or neither are rather neglected when people talk about transgender. But as far as I understand it, we're talking here mainly about people who feel themselves not to be two genders but to be one gender only, the opposite gender to the one they were assigned at birth.

birds - bisexual behaviour is well documented. This doesn't mean if those people were living today they would define as bisexual. Some might,some might define as lesbian/gay but had felt forced by society into opposite sex relationships, some might say they were experimenting.

There was no label of bisexuality,or gay, lesbian and transgender way in the past, so I honestly don't think we can put an identity label on individuals from the past - although I know it is common practice to do this. And one of my personal bugbears.

Tbh, considering the trouble shared facilities causes, judging by the threads on MN, i think every service provider should have some private showers etc, also, for whatever reason the person has to use them.

All hospitals have private rooms, so it is a none issue. Transgendered people are often in segregated prisons or are a suicide risk, anyway.

I was just hedging the poster who would come along and say that this never used to exist and was a modern day thing.

I have heared elderly people, in my younger days, say that there was no gays, when they were young, well no, because they went to prison.

All NHS surveys show that most patients want to be in a single sex ward. So it is clearly an issue.

So what do you think we should do, GB? Do you think we should get rid of gender segregation all together? Or have gender segregation for more than two genders? But if we did have gender segregation for more than two, who decides who goes into which group? And on what grounds?

I can't think of a solution to it.

Birds - okay - you are right about that.

BGF, I've read that it is a big issue still in the NHS, and that transgender people are often not getting treatment in terms of privacy, care etc, that anybody would find appropriate, regardless of what they think about transgender as an issue.

clothes - That doesn't surprise me as I think it is a hard one to tackle. Easy if post perative - then they go on the ward appropriate to their body. But if for example they have had a boob job but still have a penis, it is more problematic.

I mean that having breasts but still a penis, isn't an issue, because there are private rooms available, we do not have to undo every aspect of our society, this isn't a threat in any way.

In terms of service provision it can be easily sorted to everyone's satisfaction.

There has recently been a lot of statutory training, in my region, anyway, on transgender and there was an invitation for the transgendered community to get involved with patient planning groups, so there is progress being made.

I think that these discussions are needed, this should be better understood by the public.

More soaps are having transgendered characters in them, which promotes discussion.

I don't know what you mean by private rooms? In the NHS most peopel are in 6 bed bays. Usually only the illest or dying get private rooms.

Clothes - Off the top of my head, I agree it would be more convenient for more people if there were more private facilities. What with maximising budgets and all, it's obvious that you can please most of the people most of the time, at the lowest cost, by having two communal facilities. But that continues to force self-assignment on the bunch in the middle.

I was shocked when I heard a woman with a working penis could be in a women's prison, in a women's hospital ward or (less scary) changing room. I don't know whether it happens in practice. Neither do I know how that would translate to the armed services, for example.

A sharper focus on individuals rather than 'blocks' would seem advantageous in every way but cost.

So if, for example (and it is an example based hypothetical situations discussed in a legal case), a female child has to be examined, for police reasons, and the law is that the examination should be carried out and/or supervised by female officers, and the officer in question is MTF transgender, how do you resolve that to everyone's satisfaction? What happens if either the child, or the child's parents, want the examination to be supervised by a person who the child perceives as female, if they don't perceive the transgender person that way?

I think few people would say that private rooms is the priority for any extra NHS spend at the moment tbh. It is also more expensive to adequately nurse with private rooms than in wards.

Garlic-are you taking about a born male or female being in a womans prison?

Sorry, I keep x posting.

GB, at my son's secondary school, some of the toilets blocks are now not single sex. The cubicles are in two separate lines, but the sinks and general area are mixed. So maybe we are moving more towards having less single sex facilities anyway. Although, obviously it can't work in all situations.