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.

My mother beat me, for what that's worth.

Overall, fathers were significantly more likely to kill their children than mothers, and were more likely to use violent methods of killing, have previous convictions for violent offences, perpetrate multiple killings, and have a history of substance misuse or dependence.

I am rubbish at linking but it was from the university of manchester

My browser history is going to look very suspect if anything (god forbid) happens to my family

Cross post

Sorry to hear that, qwerty.

"Because of issues surrounding reporting and cultural prejudices there is no real way of knowing. "

So, you think it's higher, because that suits your argument, or based on something else?

Do you think that women give an actual fuck that violent, abusive, murdering, raping, trafficking, controlling, exploitative, misogynistic, women hating and destroying men didn't have it in them "when they were lying in their cots"??

No, of course not. I did not suggest they did. I am not excusing these men one iota. I am saying that men are not born more violent than women.

I'm talking about why men are more violent than women. If you want to get into moral judgment then that's a different issue.

I could also proffer lots of explanations as to why men become terrorists. That does not mean I excuse their actions by attempting to explain them. I'm sure people historians who have written books about the factors that led to the rise of Hitler were not attempting to morally excuse the holocaust in doing so.

If you do want my moral opinion, I don't care how much these men have been corrupted by their society: if they hadn't blown their own brains out I would be quite happy to have seen them put up against a wall.

It's based on something else.

And father is different from boyfriend that the mums only known for 6 weeks

And (really cant be bothered to look myself) do the figures for mothers include infanticide

I dont see much difference myself but i know that some women have severe problems following the birth of their children

It seems it rather depends on the maltreatment in question - because when it comes to severe maltreatment, it's men (end of page 10)

^Although a substantial amount of child maltreatment was also perpetrated by female parents or guardians, adult males were the most frequently reported perpetrators of severe maltreatment in
the family. In the subsample of participants who reported severe physical violence by a parent or guardian, males were perpetrators in 86.4 per cent of cases reported for the under 11s, in
72.9 per cent for the 11-17s and 64.7 for the 18-24 year old age group.^

I might also add, that I didn't read that this was weighted by how much time children spent in the care of each sex. For example, if of a sample of 100 abused children, 10 children were abused by men and 90 by women, but only 20 of those hundred kids lived with men, then it would paint a rather different picture wouldn't it? (An extreme example, it's not going to be skewed that far) - since women are much more likely to be looking after kids day in, day out, if everything else was equal, we'd expect more abuse from women wouldn't we? We have more opportunity.

I might also mention that whilst right now my 6 year old wouldn't stand a chance, give him until he's 11 and he won't have any trouble restraining me (although, yes, again, persistent offenders will have cowed their victims)

Yes I'd read that one Rufus.

I admit I was wrong to blithely assert that women are just as likely to kill their children. The evidence seems more conflicting and complex that that.

Thank you qwerty

Not having a pop, it just seemed to contradict everything i had read previously

It seems it rather depends on the maltreatment in question - because when it comes to severe maltreatment, it's men (end of page 10)

Yes I think that's probably true. I don't know. It seems very complicated.

Look, men are more violent than women. This is incontestable. The question is, is that because they were born with an excess of testosterone? Or is it because a culture of male domination and violence exerted an influence on them? I would say the latter. If it's the former, then whatever kind of society we have, there will always be more violent, aggressive men than women. There will always be that general gender asymmetry. I don't think that's the case. I think women can potentially be just as aggressive, competitive and assertive as men - in all the good ways as well as all the bad ways.

Also, it goes without saying that in the extreme examples of mass murders or serial killers/rapists there are presumably lots of other factors that make them so evil. You can't just blame the patriarchy.

Which sex do serial killers tend to be? Who do serial killers' victims overwhelmingly tend to be?

Which sex do serial killers tend to be? Who do serial killers' victims overwhelmingly tend to be?

Men. Clearly.

In a male dominated society, the ultimate form of power for some monstrously aberrant men is to take life. Like God.

That's my theory anyway.

If we did not live in a male dominated society, then who knows what proportion of serial killers would still be male.

As we don't have any basis for comparison we can only speculate.

What's the point of speculating querty?

'Woman With Short Hair Gets Pregnant'

Oooh thank you cats

I had completely forgotten what the thread was about

Well I guess if political debate didn't involve speculating on future possibilities it would be a bit limited I guess.

I had to write a maternity policy for a very, very liberal organisation a couple of years ago. The pronouns were a nightmare. Whatever I wrote, somebody had an issue with it. Think we settled on 'Primary Carer' and 'Secondary Carer'. I was very unnerved to have to remove the word 'mother' from a maternity policy but I was being paid to do a job so...

At one point though, I did sarcastically ask the policy group if we should refer to the parents as 'Reproductive Unit One' and 'Reproductive Unit Two'.

I don't do that job anymore.

Cats

Did they actually end up calling it a maternity policy in the end? I guess not.

Extraordinary Cats.

No they didn't - good point. I'd forgotten about that. We rolled it together with other related policies and referred to it as the 'Parental Support Handbook' or something along those lines.

If this was in an employment law context what is the issue of calling it a "Parental Support Handbook"?

I regularly see posts saying it is a shame fathers don't take paternity leave; fathers are never the ones who deal with sick days etc. So what is the issue about having a parental policy rather than a maternity policy?

Clearly there are issues which only apply to the person who is pregnant, which are purely "maternity" but if not related to biological issues, what is wrong with "Parental Support Handbook" ?