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.

What is it about you, Lass, that enables you to navigate experiences that might traumatize other women, whether (as now) pregnancy and birth or, as I recall, never being inconvenienced by any male behaviour ever? I can't think of anything we've discussed recently where you didn't take the position that it was a walk in the park. Maybe I'm being too broad brush stroke but I've definitely gained the impression that when it comes to feminist issues you have a Teflon coating.

I found being pregnant a dawdle and loved it. It was a beautiful experience. I've done work since that was just as good. Lass

I did not have to be hospitalised because of morning sickness though. My cervix did not need a stitch, I did not give birth prematurely before. Et cetera.

You do understand empathy Lass?

Should have added it was a beautiful experience once I'd gone over 15 weeks, as I'd had a previous miscarriage.

Oh and also had to raise an autistic child, which was much, much more difficult than being pregnant with him.

Beachcomber said I meant what I said. Which is that IMO women have a better understanding of the value of all human life because we do the work that goes into creating that life

Is this all women? Or just those who have been pregnant? Presumably it can't be all women because that would mean all women innately have that better understanding.

Nooka posted this with which I agree.
I read that as an innate difference too, sorry Beachcomber I find the argument that all women value life/children (because they are the ones who bear children) more than more all men very problematic. To me it leads to ideas that of course women should do all childcaring etc, men are from Mars women are from Venus etc

I don't believe that I value the life of my children more than their father. Sure I had to go through pregnancy and childbirth but parenting is about so very much more than the biological beginning.

JAPAB
If someone has a powerful urge to procreate it isn't that weird to me that they would make use of the parts they have if that is possibly the only practical way they can, whether they wanted those parts or not

But in what sense then is this person who wants to procreate a man? If they are a man what does "man" mean?

What is the difference between a man and a woman?

I don't believe that I value the life of my children more than their father. Sure I had to go through pregnancy and childbirth but parenting is about so very much more than the biological beginning.

This.

This person with female plumbing and a powerful desire to procreate is in no sense a man, Lass.

Lass, I already said twice that I was talking about "women as a class" and contrasting with "men as a class".

I'm simply seeking to understand why men as a class are more violent towards other humans than women are as a class. I'm suggesting that perhaps women as a class are less cavalier with human life than men as a class because women as a class are the ones who expend time and energy in growing that human life in their bodies.

No worries if you disagree. I'm interested to hear your ideas as to why men as a class behave with less regard for human life than women as a class do.

I don't believe that I value the life of my children more than their father. Sure I had to go through pregnancy and childbirth but parenting is about so very much more than the biological beginning.

If the father turned out to be an abusive person, would you think this? If the mother turned out to be an abusive person, would you think this?

Men obviously value the life of the mother more than the children though.

I'm simply seeking to understand why men as a class are more violent towards other humans than women are as a class. I'm suggesting that perhaps women as a class are less cavalier with human life than men as a class because women as a class are the ones who expend time and energy in growing that human life in their bodies.

It's a theory Beachcomber, but an essentialist one. It is tantamount to saying that men are biologically predisposed to be more violent than women - which goes against much feminist thought.

Men obviously value the life of the mother more than the children though.

Erm..do they?

Agree with Floggin

I think we need to be vary wary about making statements about what men and women do and do not value. While patterns of gendered behaviour do exist, men and women are not homogenous unitary consciousnesses. They do vary a bit from individual to individual, to the extent that there are mothers who could not give less of a shit about their children and fathers who love them dearly. This is not to deny that men are not overall more violent.

"why men as a class are more violent towards other humans than women are as a class. I'm suggesting that perhaps women as a class are less cavalier with human life than men as a class because women as a class are the ones who expend time and energy in growing that human life in their bodies."

One word: Testosterone.

Women who have never had children are still not violent like men.

"It is tantamount to saying that men are biologically predisposed to be more violent than women - which goes against much feminist thought."

It does? I would be surprised if this "feminist thought" you speak of is not aware of the effects of testosterone on amygdala activation and suppression of prefrontal restraint.

Well I thought the third wave consensus was that men were socialised into being more violent? Could be wrong. But if you're saying men are naturally, neuro-biologically more violent, you are on VERY problematic ground - because you're in effect saying that male violence is not a political phenomenon that can be changed, but part of the natural order of things (which presumably can't). That is generally how violent and dominative men justify they're behaviour. They legitimise it as natural and therefore inevitable.

It seems evident to me that both are true. Men are more aggressive & violent than women because they run on testosterone and this aggression is sanctioned (even encouraged) by their socialisation.

I don't give a shiny one about whether or not this confirms with anyone's "consensus".

It's a theory Beachcomber, but an essentialist one. It is tantamount to saying that men are biologically predisposed to be more violent than women - which goes against much feminist thought.

No it isn't.

As I have already said to you, I am talking about menstruation, pregnancy and childbirth as lived experiences.

A lived experience comes under the heading "nurture" not "nature".

As I have already said, I may be wrong but what I am not is making an essentialist argument.

Saying that our lived experiences influence how we see the world is the opposite of an essentialist argument.

Yes but the 'lived experience' of pregnancy is biologically limited to females. So therefore, by implication, female psychology is biologically determined - according to your theory.

'Nurture' denotes influences that are socially relative, and that could change. Pregnancy is not socially relative. It is a biological fact of female of experience that can never ever change. Therefore, if this fixed female experience makes women value human life more, then that is tantamount to saying that differences in male and female psychology are biologically immutable.

It seems evident to me that both are true. Men are more aggressive & violent than women because they run on testosterone and this aggression is sanctioned (even encouraged) by their socialisation.

Ok, but that's feminism scuppered isn't it? No arguing with the effects of testosterone on the amygdala.

Women who have never had children are still not violent like men.

No Cote, you are right. I'm not putting it forward as the sole explanation by any means. I just wonder if it is a factor.

Wasn't there some research done that found exogenous testosterone made people calmer and less violent? Sorry I can't remember the details.
Even if men have more potential to be violent, if violence wasn't accepted in society, they wouldn't be as violent imo. I'm sure men could control themselves much better if socialised not to be violent, but obviously that is not something that could be achieved quickly or easily.

Why does that mean feminism is scuppered? Why should aggressive and violent hormone driven behaviour prevail in our civilised times? We're not on the savannah now. There is no reason why this should be the case. What about the benefits of cooperation and community?

Well if men are neuro-biologically predisposed to be more aggressive, overall, than women - then presumably they always will be. And it doesn't matter if they're on the savannah or throwing their weight around in a corporate boardroom, boys will be boys, because of all that testosterone having an effect on their amygdala's. Where as the women presumably, lacking all that testosterone, and being less badass because they get pregnant and care about human life more, will be at home looking after the kids.

Of course I don't believe that though. There is very little evidence of innate differences between male and female brains, or that testosterone makes people more aggressive.

What if I, a woman, feel more violent in the week before my period due to hormones? Does that give me a free pass to twat someone who annoys me?
No, and testosterone doesn't give men a free pass either. Someone who is violent makes a choice to be so.