"Two British men become the first to give birth"

[OlennasWimple]

Telegraph story here

Except, of course, they aren't men, they are transmen, one of whom conceived using donor sperm and the other following a heterosexual one night stand.

I'm slightly gladdened, though, by the BTL comments which point out that it's not possible to change sex. Perhaps they are all noms de plume, but most seem to be from men (and men who would never call themselves radical feminists). I'm waiting to see whether there is an invasion of TRAs into that forum or whether they save themselves for easier targets

Given the lack of logic over this, I'm going to argue that Arnold Schwartznegger was the first ever pregnant man

Oh, yes, Schwarzenegger. I remember. It was all over the news, wasn't it?
It was a fictional movie, but considering that those men's maleness is also fictional, where's the difference?

I agree with Arnold .S being the first

Giving birth is also the one thing that even the most openly sexist dinosaurs acknowledge women are exclusively capable of. We only need male fluids to reproduce, males need the woman in entirety. But claiming men can also give birth nicely wipes that out. We can't have women physically capable of something men can't do, so let's pretend men can.

I can't tell whether this DM article about Thomas Beattie ("the first man to give birth") is deliberately tongue in cheek. Who said that it's only women who have so much focus on their bodies, eh?

I wouldn't have thought the Mail did tongue in cheek! I was impressed that they managed to work 'welfare handouts' into the subject. If anything it came across as 'check out this freak, look at the bearded lady'. However I freely admit I always assume the worst of the mail.

It's seeing DM reporting these stories apparent straight faced that makes me completely certain we're now in a weird dystopian mirror world. If DM aren't unambiguously frothing about it, then the world's really gone trans-mad.

If DM aren't unambiguously frothing about it, then the world's really gone trans-mad.

Nah, don't worry. It's like when they reported on asylum seeker children being helped and kept using the word "children" alongside photos of especially old looking teens. We're supposed to join the dots and be outraged... (surely?!)

Nah, don't worry. It's like when they reported on asylum seeker children being helped and kept using the word "children" alongside photos of especially old looking teens. We're supposed to join the dots and be outraged... (surely?!)

Is the Daily Mail known for such subtlety?

If the Daily Mail is anything like German "newspaper" Bild, then I don't think they would expect such advanced thinking from their readers.

They'd risk their readers to write angry letters after taking everything seriously.

Vestal IIRC the comments were saying "These are not children! WTF?" so I think it had that effect. I've just had a quick google for the article and dredged up eleventy million anti-asylum seeker/"children" lying about age articles. So either they randomly published an article that was the complete opposite of everything they stand for, written in a completely different way, or they purposely intended to create a WTF moment. It was the way they kept saying "child" and "children" imo unnecessarily - the article conjured up an image of small children guided to safety, but seeing (apparently) bearded young men jarred with the mental image the words created. It's a sort of fake-supportive "freak show" type thing with trans I think.

Plus, the trans thing undermines the political left so they are likely to go along with it.