US 'pregnant man' expecting again

[MommyHasaHeadache]

Story here

That was quick huh! He only just had the other one!

Poor children. IMO it's one thing for same sex couples to have children but how do you explain this to your kids - Daddy's a woman? However, I suppose they are a same sex couple in one sense. It's very difficult for me to get my head round.

Legally he is a man, their marriage is legal, so I think they are considered a heterosexual couple.

I saw him in an interview with Oprah and I think that is what he said.

sorry but I think it's bloody weird.

If you want to live as a man then go for it. But part of being a man means you are unable to bear children.

Me thinks that in reality he (she?) isn't as comfortable with his sexuality as he would have us believe.

If he wanted to be a man that desparately then surely he would have undergone the full surgery and would have wanted to be distanced from everything that made him a woman.

Oh it's such a load of cobblers. Is it going to make headlines every time he has a baby? I mean really, wow 'Person born with female reproductive organs bears child'. goodness me, who would have thought? Like it doesn't happen every flipping day.

So he had a mastectomy and took male hormones. He clearly kept his female genitals, so he wasn't quite as completely gender-realigned as all that. I think it makes a bit of a mockery of many other gender re-aligned people, tbh.

And it's not news, either. Unless we're going to announce every pregnancy ever now.

Maybe I am being harsh, but perhaps his bank balance needed replenishing?

The chap is 34 yo - they aren't young and the advice not to delay TTC is relevent yes?

DS saw this on the news this morning - cue some very complicated question & answers! I can't understand why he wants to be a man but still have kids....just odd.

I agree Dittany

It's all just sensationalism gone bonkers

Agree. She's not a man at all.

How is (s)he legally a man? is it just because (s)he says (s)he is?

I thought 'gender reassignment surgery' meant the replacement of female gentitalia with male ? So presumably s/he does have a penis (of sorts).

Has s/he had the children by c-section then ? I assume that all the internal stuff is female but the external is male, is that correct ?

or vice versa re GRS

I agree with Dittany. If he was so keen on being a man then why keep all the female reproductive organs. Attention seeking?

Oh, just seen that he gave birth 'the natural way', presumably the means vaginally ?

How is he legally male then ?

I don't understand why people are so down on this couple.

He is legally a man - he has gone through all the necessary steps to be recognised as such - living as a man, hormone therapy, breast removal - so calling him a woman because he kept his female genitalia is downright offensive. He has an enlarged clitoris that works as a rudimentary penis.

In the Oprah interview they did, he came across as very sincere, and wanting the best for his family. He wanted to have his own biological children, and his wife was unable to carry a child, so he utilised the organs he had to do so.

I agree that it's not news, and the family should be left in peace to bring up their children. I don't agree that they are fair game for people to call them attention seeking and worse.

Ah, I don't agree with that Julie Bindel line, Dittany. Not any more; mainly through knowing at least one transwoman fairly well.

AFAIK quite a few transmen do not have phalloplasties, because the surgery is quite crude and unworkable. This one's certainly not the only one to carry a baby to term.

They went on Oprah because they were about to be "outed" by the National Enquirer or similar, and wanted to tell their side of the story.

And of course we'd find out they were having a second baby - these things don't stay private.

I have a friend whose dh decided to become a woman, he has had hormone treatment in order to grow breasts but afaik has not yet had gender reassignment. However, he has legally been reclassified as a woman, and as such his marriage was anulled as a woman cannot legally be married to a woman.

This man might be legally a man, but she is, in fact a woman, capable of bearing children, and presumably willing to continue doing so.

And IMO it's wrong. What kind of ridicule are they setting these children up for by making this all public?

D'you know what? I think it's none of our business.

And I think this 'what about the poor children' argument is worn out. It's been used against mixed-race unions (like my parents') gay parents (like many of my friends) and others. Give it a break.

calling him a woman because he kept his female genitalia is downright offensive

--------

Why? Unless being a woman is offensive, which I would dispute most strongly. This is evidently not a black and white issue, and gender realignment hardly ever is. But, I'm sorry, I'm a little baffled by the having-cake-and-eating-it nature of this.

If he so genuinely is a man inside that he needed to have surgery to make his genetically female physiology male, why is he bearing a children in this way?

I'm honestly interested in the issues behind this. I mean, what defines 'maleness' and 'femaleness'.

Unless we're going to go with the Humpty Dumpty answer of 'a word means whatever I want it to mean at the time', which is clearly nonsense.

I'm sure the children involved won't be any more warped than the children of any other gay or heterosexual couples. And really, I do think it's fine to discuss it, given that they made it public property by going public, which they didn't need to do. 'No comment' isn't illegal nowadays, though it's a lot less lucrative, of course.

If people didn't indulge in the kind of ridicule that crops up in the papers - and on MN - every time this comes up, the poor children wouldn't BE ridiculed, would they?

Ridicule is perhgaps in all your hands, rather than this couples'?

It doesn't take such a huge leap of imgination, surely, to absorb 'person living as man who used to live as woman and still has reproductive organs capable of bearing child does actually - bear child'? Humans on the moon, CERN try to recreate black hole, discovery of human genonme - but simple shifting of gender expectations, roles and functions and everyone is all agog and pursed lips.