<p>I heard a new issue re this story. Thomas’ passport says he is male. He and wife are married. They file joint tax returns. The conversation today brought up the legitimacy of the marriage and, therefore, taxes, insurance and inheritances. Pretty new territory even in the most liberal courts…</p>
<p>I think it is a story in that it raises questions about what defines gender. I did read an article about him and I was under the impression that it was his choice to retain the female organs and not a financially motivated decision. He and the woman he is in a relationship had a lesbian relationship prior to his surgery and hormone treatment. They have been together a long time. He is considered a male legally and I’m a bit confused about that. I guess the law (and it really is a guess) will change someone’s gender to fit their view of themselves as opposed to what steps they have taken to alter their body – not sure. But I see no difference between this person carrying a baby and any other woman who is artificially inseminated. Regardless of what the law says, his genomes make him female and his reproductive organs are female and he has had no surgery to change that in any way (which leads me to believe that he is a candidate for a vaginal delivery.) I think, Jessie, that for some of us biology matters when defining gender. It may not be all that matters but it can’t be dismissed either. He may be psychologically male but he is biologically female with some male characteristics that are artificially achieved. Yes, I used he in my post because that is what he calls himself but for many people biology is inextricably linked to any discussion of gender identity, particularly when we are talking about conceiving and/or carrying a baby where there are biological constraints. It was not biologically possible for him to father the baby in terms of contributing sperm. The only thing he had to do to successfully carry the baby to term was stop the hormone treatments that give him secondary male characteristics. Do we define gender strictly by biology or psychology and/or both? What about the woman who has had a prophylactic mastectomy and removal of her reproductive organs because she has the BRACA gene? Is she still a female if she sees herself as one? A male if she thinks of herself as that way? What about the role of genes? Other than the cases that involve an outward biology that does not match a person’s genetic make-up, do we just ignore a person’s genetic make-up? If I as a brunette dye my hair blonde am I a blonde the way a natural-born blonde is? Is it because I use the dye? Because I think of myself as a blonde? My kids will not be born blonde as a result of what I believe because genes do matter. Can we dismiss the importance of genes in defining gender while we consider them more and more every day for propensity towards disease, for mental disorders, for personality development, etc.? Do we just throw that out in terms of gender definition? I think a fair discussion has to include biology and genetics as well as a thoughtful analysis of the nurture/nature issues involved in all topics related to identity.</p>
<p>Biology and psychology aren’t totally independent either. A lot of psych has a neurobiological basis.</p>
<p>Genetics are a blueprint (and one that, when it comes to sex, is not without complicating blips - look at XYY males, males with Klinefelter syndrome, females with Triple X syndrome or Turner syndrome, etc), but there are different factors that affect how and if genetics get expressed. I don’t mean nature vs. nurture here (the answer is usually “some of both” anyway), I mean developmental neuro and developmental bio. I mean hormone exposure at various stages of development, disruption to biochemical pathways, etc. There is some scientific evidence (see Zhou et al, 1995, and Kruijver et all, 2000) indicating that transgendered individuals have areas of brain structure more similar to that of the sex that they identify with, that for whatever reason, their bodies and brains went in the opposite direction in development when it came to sexual dimorphism.</p>
<p>I agree with you, Jessie – the biology is complex and I think there is a lot we don’t yet know. But we do know that the brain is “nurture expectant” in that it needs experience to stimulate certain growth,etc. If a brain structure is more similar to that of the sex identified with, it may be a case of experience/nurture and thought itself influencing the structure of the brain as opposed to the other way around.</p>
<p>OOT, not quite “pregnant”, but even stranger story…
[ABC</a> News: A Pregnant Man?](<a href=“Man With Twin Living Inside Him -- A Medical Mystery Classic - ABC News”>Man With Twin Living Inside Him -- A Medical Mystery Classic - ABC News)</p>
<p>It certainly wasn’t worth a whole ‘Oprah’ show.</p>
<p>I’m sorry I might have offended someone by using the quotes around the he in my previous post. I was merely trying to define who in the relationship I was speaking of.No malice intended.
What I can’t wrap my head around is why someone who thinks of themselves as male and takes steps to become male would contemplate following the traditionally female path of gestation and the necessary component of stopping the male hormone treatments to accomodate the pregnancy.Won’t his female psychological or physical characteristics for lack of a better term…take over…again?</p>
<p>The one we are talking about, Thomas Beatie, it is a uterine pregnancy. He became pregnant by artificial insemination not by an implanted fetus.</p>
<p>It is weird- I don’t have the personal experience of being transgendered, but if I did, I think I would be really annoyed with this guy for making the entire group look flaky. If you are born a woman and so sure you were meant to be a man, then why stop the surgical adjustments halfway through, esp if it is true that he said he did so to have a child later!!</p>
<p>If he/she (what is the situation today?) stopped taking the hormones, then how does that work? How does that change things?</p>
<p>If I felt so strongly that I was born the wrong gender, then took steps to fix that, I would find it difficult to imagine that I would stop everything to participate in an activity that is totally connected with my “old” gender.</p>
<p>I don’t get why he wanted to do this.</p>
<p>I also don’t understand why it is worthy of being story other than tabloid??? He is not a miracle XY man born with a uterus, he is XX who is halfway to becoming a man and decided to stop the hormones and have a baby. So, what is the storY/</p>
<p>Publicity stunt, book money?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am always intrigued by stories of (most of the ones I’ve read) men who always felt they were women, despite living as men.</p>
<p>I can’t wrap my mind around the concept of experiencing oneself as being of one sex, when all one’s experience is that of being the other.</p>
<p>From what I know, Thomas Beattie wasn’t even the first to do what he did – just the most publicity-conscious. Here’s a story about someone else who’s going to have twins, in Spain:</p>
<p>[Man</a> to become first in world to give birth to twins - Telegraph](<a href=“Man to become first in world to give birth to twins”>Man to become first in world to give birth to twins)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>More at link, including a photo that I can’t imagine anyone could look at and think that he is anything other than a man.</p>
<p>I’m not happy about the quotation marks around “man” and “he,” but at least the article is basically respectful. And it’s always nice to see people being respectful – instead of nasty and engaging in ridicule and calling people like Mr. Coronado a “freak” or a “lunatic” – whatever their personal opinion may be. [Hint, hint.]</p>
<p>And another case:</p>
<p><a href=“World News | Global News & International Headlines | Daily Mail Online”>World News | Global News & International Headlines | Daily Mail Online;
<p>
</p>
<p>more at link, w/photos of the happy couple</p>