British 'man' becomes pregnant

[slithytove]

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/first-british-man-reveal-hes-9582789

Sorry, it's a mirror link

I don't usually post about this stuff, but it's really annoyed me this time.

Now 'men' can get pregnant? So 'men' will need maternity leave, 'men' will need maternity services, probably somehow different to women's.

Is it just me or does the fact they are calling this person a man instead of a transman, allow men (people born as men) to take even more from women under the trans rights umbrella?

Who would it hurt to call this pregnant person a transman?

I guess we should be grateful this person was born as a woman and is therefore socialised to not put themselves first.

I can see you want to believe that is all there is to it, but there is extensive scientific literature on hormones and their effects on behaviour.

Start your reading with animal studies.

Thanks for that, Captain Obvious.

That was to qwerty not Capt. unfortunate timing.

Sorry not Cote.

Qwerty, you are truly the Duracell Bunny of mansplainers.

It must be weird being a bloke 🤔

You have no idea ageingrunner

*To clarify, what I have been trying to say throughout this thread is that overall, in most human societies, men are more manifestly aggressive than women because of social factors. Because of nurture rather than nature.

Men are not necessarily born more likely to develop aggressive personalities than women; and women are not necessarily born more likely to develop caring, passive, nurturing ones than men. There are no biological determinants of male domination independent of social, cultural and economic context. None.*

Ah ... I don't agree with this, especially the last two sentences. I think that there are complex relationships between nurture and nature and between bodies and their environments with respect to both hormones and brain development and that the scientific literature that I have read on this (which is not exhaustive) backs this up. That is different from their being "no biological determinants of male domination (emphasis mine)". For a start, men have penises and can rape / forcibly impregnate women. Women as a group tend towards having less muscle mass than men as a group and men as a group tend to be stronger than women as a group. Pregnancy (depending on a range of environmental factors) can be mildly to severely limiting for women and men biologically do not get pregnant.

It's not nurture or nature, but a complex relationship betwen the two that determines behaviour, and there are concrete, observable and unchangeable bodily 'facts' that determine the sex-binary between males and females.

Thank you FloraFox for your above post.

Arf at Duracell Bunny of mansplaining venusinscorpio.

Now I come to think of it, the only essentialism that we have seen on this thread is the notion that the only reason men are violent oppressors of girls and women is because of their (innate!) manly strength and physique. Ahem.

Now I come to think of it, the only essentialism that we have seen on this thread is the notion that the only reason men are violent oppressors of girls and women is because of their (innate!) manly strength and physique. Ahem.

Oh no! was that in relation to my post? Because that was not what I was saying!

For a start, men have penises and can rape / forcibly impregnate women. Women as a group tend towards having less muscle mass than men as a group and men as a group tend to be stronger than women as a group.

That's right, but I would argue that muscle mass and penetrative capacity are more matters of capability than aggressive intent.

And of course there are 'complex relationships between nurture and nature'. We are all physical beings with physical brains. But that there is not in general one set course for male brains developing and another female independent of social context.

This is a horrible illustration of my point, but if you took a female child at birth, sequestered her away from all contact with mainstream society, and spent the first ten years of her critical period of brain development brutalising her and telling her that violence is the way to solve problems then you would probably create a sociopathic monster.

And if you subjected both a male and female child to the same process, there is no reason at all why the male child would necessarily end up more of a sociopathic monster than the female one.

No, YetAnotherSpartacus that wasn't referring to anything you have said. It as an idea put forward by qwerty quite early on in the thread.

The 'chap' in question was papped today...

How long before we gave him in celebrity big brother?

And I totally get and agree with what you just posted YetAnotherSpartacus.

Indeed what you say above it is what I meant by bringing phenomenology into it.

No, YetAnotherSpartacus that wasn't referring to anything you have said. It as an idea put forward by qwerty quite early on in the thread

Thanks for letting me know.

Now I come to think of it, the only essentialism that we have seen on this thread is the notion that the only reason men are violent oppressors of girls and women is because of their (innate!) manly strength and physique. Ahem.

That's a fair point. I was kind of wrong there I think. I suppose I was trying to say, albeit not very well, that patriarchy started because of that capability - and successive social structures accrued, perpetuating the subjugation and violation of women.

It's a bit like saying that if you give one group of people a load of guns and tanks, then the chances are they will assume a superior status because they have that power. Because they can. And from then on the gun and tank owners come to culturally define themselves as more superior than the non-tank owners. But that is reversible. It is not essentialist.

There is no reason why a society that gives women equal or greater power might not develop, even though that power would not be phallically exercised. Theoretically speaking. Power and its abuse is not inherently phallic. To suggest it is would be essentialist.

Patriarchy is reversible. We now have a society where physical might does not carry the power it once did in a Bronze Age community. A lot of power is wielded in non-physical ways. Even warfare is being digitised. Quite a few of those Russian hackers were young women.

My point is that if any class of humans find themselves with the opportunity to exercise undue power (and men in primitive societies did) then they will abuse that power.

The person who is pregnant is a woman whatever they call themselves as men cannot be pregnant. If they then go on to fully transition then they are a transman in my mind. If they don't do anything to physically transition but just dress as a man then they are a woman who likes to dress manly. They can call it what they like but it is bloody ridiculous to say a man is pregnant.

I just want to make one last point. Material conditions engender power structures, and hitherto (at least in Western societies) those material conditions have favoured male dominance.

But that is changing. The internet will revolutionise gender relations. This new digitised, post-industrial world we will be entering will allow women power they have never had before. In a century or two machines will completely dominate an economy that was once dominated by men.

I know it probably doesn't seem like that now because there is all the misogynist porn and rape threats on Twitter etc. But that is men frightened and enraged, trying to dominate a cyberspace that for the first time allows you a voice. Because now you don't need a penis and a six pack to assert your power anymore - just a broadband connection.

This is the beginning of the end of our time, and eventually it will be your time. And you will have power - sexual power, economic power. And that power will be intoxicating but it will also come with a dark side. It will be a burden of moral responsibility, and woman will do evil with it as well as enormous good.

Because women are human.

querty obviously moonlights as Mystic Meg.

It's incredible really how little is known about male violence considering how prevalent it is and how much damage it does.

It's such a taboo subject, with a shying away from naming it, let alone examining it. It is a massive and ghastly elephant in the room which has bearing on pretty well every aspect of human life.

Just look at these stats from Million Women Rise: www.millionwomenrise.com/about-male-violence.html

And when men are confronted with it by women all you get is a volley of NAMALT/women do it too/stop being a man hater/yeah but no but men invented the wheel/women would be just as bad if they were men/etc and if you're lucky a bit of hand wringing over men not being able to help being so big and strong.

They could just stop. Right now. If they wanted to.

😂

Sorry that was to Flogging's post

Haha yeah that's exactly my experience of the internet - it's the dawn of MY time - woo! Oh except for the doxxing and the pretty much constant rape threats if you speak about feminism, and the fact that anyone with a slightly feminist or gender critical POV gets pre-modded on mainstream news sites whilst white-supremacists and MRAs are allowed free reign.