The Woman Who Became A Man Who Became A Woman

...

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:57:40 +0100

As a counter part to this person getting pregnant; let's consider the other side of the coin, a MtF "TS" that decides he is Female, lives as a female full time but elects to keep his testicles and penis and then impregnates "her" cis female partner; could the claim be made that a "Female" was the Father of baby-- I don't think so and in this case, retention of the ovaries, uterus and a desire to become impregnated says loudly that this person is still a FEMALE and at best a cross dresser. - Pamela Dunn

Welcome, Adam

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 07:37:33 +0100

We are pleased to receive your comments on Lisa Thompson's opinion column. You said I am sorry for intruding on your group ... This is an open site that welcomes responsible comments like yours. We believe that an informed and civil debate on these important topics is essential to continuing progress. Sharon S. Gaughan TS-Si VP & Executive Director Managing Editor, TS-Si.org - Sharon S. Gaughan

Response to Adam B

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 07:10:44 +0100

...... If HBS men and women (FNA transsexual) can keep their sexual organs present at birth, the category does not exist. We are merely an extreme form of cross-dressing/transvestism as Dr. Blanchard says. How would society tell the HBS/transsexuals from the crossdressers? Are HBS/transsexuals some special case that we can be taken at our word? We can lie just as well as any crossdressed who is being placed under arrest. No man that I have ever met has expressed an actual physical desire to carry a baby within them for nine months. They may talk about it theoretically but when the rubber hits the road, no man wants nine months that ends with the pain of labor. Women have babies. None of this addresses the decision to have bottom surgery or not. The cost is high, the technique still developing -- that is a separate decision. Money and poor health are legitimate reasons not to have an operation. Wanting to become pregnant is not (and suggests that the person is a crossdresser/transgender rather than a true HBS man). If you want to have a child, adopt -- or pay for experimental surgery to merge two ova in vitro. I'm sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it too. Life forces you to make decisions. Hopefully we make informed ones. I am neither the tool of the right nor a lockstep jackboot of the left. I subscribe to no particular political, social, or religious bent. If HBS men and women screw up in public and make the case for HBS more difficult for our politicians and society to understand, I will say so. Being HBS/transsexual does not give you a free pass from rationality or neurobiology. - Lisa Thompson

Adam B

Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:25:01 +0100

I am sorry for intruding on your group but I was surfing by and found this article and I feel some of your facts need to be corrected. I apologize if this offends you but you should be basing your opinions on the truth in this and all matters. I am a FTM transsexual, that is my label, I can use HBS in reference to you if you would like. First this is not the first case of FTM pregnancy, though I agree it is unusual. I personally know of 4 cases including Thomas's. This is in no way new. The first case I know of occurred in the 70s after my mentor was transitioning. The boy was born with no problems by c-section because the man in this case was uncomfortable with vaginal birth and desired removal of the organs after the birth. To the best of my knowledge the birth and development were normal and the parent identified as the child's father. In the other 2 cases that I know of from about 10 years ago the births and little I know of after was normal and in both cases the people have transitioned through reputable gender programs in the US. I am also aware of many FTMs who would be very insulted to hear that because they choose to keep their organs for personal reasons they wouldn't be considered FTM. I choose to get rid of mine first because that was the surgery I could get but not everyone is me. There will always be men who don't choose surgery because they feel the risks are too high. Finally many FTM are parents and sometimes even mom's; we can't control our circumstances, we can only hope to figure out our route in the storm. I know nothing of the man's process of transitioning but I do know that he has stated his identity and you and I must respect it if we wish others to respect us. Firstly that he has not yet had surgery doesn't mean anything to his identity. His wife can't have anymore children (I believe she has one). The couple decided jointly that they wanted to have their flesh and blood and wanted another. He is not taking hormones while pregnant but has stated he will resume them after recovery from delivery and will present as the father of this child with his wife as a mother. Finally I aware that he is writing a book, so that much can be given but I think you need to be careful with the words you use as there is little basis that I am aware of for your statements regarding his family and monetary situation nor should the viewpoint of social conservatives play greatly into what someone choose to do unless they happen to be a social conservative. Such statement do disservice to yourself and the cause you are promoting, you could easily have presented your views without those statements that are hurtful to the community, myself and I am sure Thomas and his family. Lets keep the debate civil, alright? Anyone who doesn't have their ovaries, tubes and uterus removed can in theory become pregnant, scary as that might be to anyone's personal identity. When we take testosterone it cause the ovaries to become dormant but it doesn't even do the same for the uterus which we now know continues to build endometrial tissues which must be properly sloughed. No, I think we can't say that testosterone sterilizes as anymore then estrogen will do so to a biological man or MTF. It causes through negative feedback a cessation of hormonal production needed for normal function (that which occurs with no treatment). The normal course without surgery upon introduction of exogenously hormones is hormones stop and if said treatment is stopped the person organ will rarely start function properly on their own (though this can occur in rare cases or over long term disuse). Many people if given a hormone produced by the adrenals will begin normal function of the organs. This is what people do if they want to start normal production again and also accounts for the symptoms found on ceasing therapy. It is also why many of choose surgery if available. However this is tempered by the fact that for reason unknown to medical science this doesn't always occur and the longer you are on HRT the less likely that they will be able to find viable ova. This might mean permanent sterility or mean that alternative methods from hormone shots to test tube babies. I repeat this is in no way impossible and is a viable method for people who transition and have regrets and haven't had surgery or who want to for whatever reason produce endogenous hormones. This also why msst governments require surgical sterilization before legal sex change. Finally I have proof-read, spell-checked and corrected all mistakes found however some may have been overlooked and for that I am sorry. Please take my statements in the light they were written being as it 5:15 here, the sun is just rising, I haven't slept, I mean well and I am not very good at catching my mistakes. Despite this I have done my research and been teaching doctors and other professionals for many years how to properly assist people with different gender and sexual identity complaints. I did notice that you seemed slightly confused on whether Thomas was struggling with a gender or sexual identity issues and judging from his statements he is comfortable with his sexual identity as straight and his gender identity as a man, neither is presenting as problematic for the person though he may suffer from GID in one of it's many forms most likely is having difficulties in environmental supports. However always bare in mind that gender and sexual disorders can and do co-exist and should be addressed as individual issues in a global context that encompasses the person not the disorder whatever might or might not be present. - Adam B

Next month on Oprah....

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:45:57 +0100

An alien ate my brain: Film Producer Lee Tamahare tell his side of the story. 8) - Joanne Proctor

Nope.

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:07:32 +0100

She is a she. Why not be who you are. She comes off to me as a lesbian who is a real bent butch. I never was a lesbian. My girl friend and me can't believe how bad this makes us all look. And what about the kid. You go, Lisa nd keep tellen em the truth. Maybe you should write a column on why clues are so hard for some people to find. back to my beer. Rob - The Real Fonz

......One last comment on this...................

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:36:17 +0100

In many states a mother carrying a child who is abusing drugs can be charged with child endangerment. I firmly believe this "person" should be charged with child endangerment. The effects of masculinizing hormones on ovaries and fetal development are known. God please stop the freak show. - Sue Robins

John

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:28:24 +0100

I think you have this wrong Lisa is not a Transgender. - Sue Robins

As well...

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 23:01:05 +0100

I posted this too: I assume you are referring to preserving the gender binary. One who is a post-operative TS, as I am, does not go through life being closed minded; I certainly welcome and consider new ideas and concepts while simultaneously rejecting what is simply because it always has been...providing there is a compelling argument to do so. I do not wish any ill will on Thomas and have said several times both here and in other blogs that I wish that family the very best. In addition, I have said several times that Thomas has the absolute right to identify as any gender he desires. I have also said here that no one has the right to tell Thomas what gender he should identify as. So there is no mistake in my position: Thomas has the right to identify as any gender he chooses and no one has the right to dictate to Thomas what that decision should be. However, that is not the issue, or at least not the point I am trying to make. Society does not embrace change just because. That is human nature, not Susan's Law of the Universe. Some concepts do not change, and shouldn't. An example of that would be murder. If several thousand people in the United States formed a movement that sought to legitimize, normalize and justify murder while accusing everyone else who didn't agree with that position of being filled with hatred, bigotry, and of being closed minded no one would buy that argument. Society would not change their position on murder just because. When Thomas chose to go on Oprah under the headline of "The Pregnant Man" the entire premise was that a male was pregnant. There has never been a pregnant male. So the viewers of the show, based on Thomas' claim and Oprah's promotion of Thomas being both male and pregnant, are challenged to decide two things, a) is Thomas pregnant, and b) is Thomas a male. The viewers decided that Thomas was indeed pregnant based on compelling medical evidence. However, upon hearing the facts regarding Thomas' gender, the overwhelming majority, all but a very few, determined that Thomas was not a male, regardless of how Thomas identified, and regardless of how Thomas thinks of himself. Humans are differentiated from other animals because we are blessed with reason, that is, to think outside of our instincts. In other words, when presented with a set of facts a conclusion is drawn. When presented with the facts as Thomas presented them, the consensus was Thomas was not male. The reason for that, in my opinion, is that regardless of how a few gender libertines think on the issue, society looks at gender from a binary perspective when it comes to one's sex...everyone is either male or female. Many, many people have commented in this thread that they can understand a transsexual changing their sex. In this case, however, the consensus was that by Thomas only having a mastectomy and then becoming pregnant a sex change never occurred. In other words, the evidence was not compelling that Thomas was a man and almost all have voiced they will not accept Thomas as being male just because they are told they must. Specifically, with regard to the gender binary, the difference between sex and gender must be discussed. As stated above, most in here seem to have no problem with someone changing their physical sex through gender reassignment surgery. As well, most don't seem to have an issue with someone identifying as a gender different than what they were born (transgender) and not undergoing gender reassignment surgery. But they most definitely have an issue with someone who has an gender identity of one gender, in this case male, but the genitalia of another, in this case female, and then simultaneously claiming (implying) his sex is male when he has not undergone gender reassignment surgery. In other words, many people are willing to allow/accept/understand floating outside the gender binary with regards to their gender identity, but almost no one is willing to even budge on the issue of the sexual binary when they have an gender identity that differs from their physical sexual identity. In most of this thread's discussions sex/gender have been used interchangeably, but to truly understand these issues one must differentiate the two. Most people's sexual and gender identity are the same. For transsexuals, they are not the same at birth but through GRS that is corrected. For transgender people, their gender identity and physical sex (genitalia) are different. That is the essential difference between transsexuals and transgender. This may sound like semantics; it is not. - Susan

Of Two-Faced Calves, 3-Legged Frogs, and Pregnant Men

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:57:04 +0100

It's difficult enough to try to understand transgender motivations; now we have Thomas Beatie heaping more confusion into the mix. What are we supposed to make of all this? America's fascination with the truly bizarre will continue to influence the media to offer shows and stories - such as Oprah - that capitalize on such behavior. Unfortunately, such behavior inappropriately perpetuates confusion of HBS and is unrepresentative, further distancing public perception from truth. Anyone with half a brain knows that men don't bear children, and women don't wear penises. Why is it that those seem to be the only ones we ever hear about? What about happy, mainstream HBS men and women who have struggled and won?...HBS men and women who ARE representative of their sex?...Why can't we ever see a poignant, heartwarming, life-affirming story of these people? The world deserves better than the constant focus they get on the bizarre, ratings-worthy fringe elements. The Thomas Beatie's of the world are an affront to all who have endured the agony of HBS and survived. The margin of distinction between 'normal' and 'bizarre' is often a narrow band, but easily discernable by anyone who has accumulated enough comparative life experiences against which to form opinions and draw conclusions. Thomas Beatie stands unabashedly, and obliviously, on the bizarre side of that narrow band. Thanks for your critique Lisa, but to me the headline alone says it all without having to dissect anything further. - Kelly M, Idaho

Oprah's Blog

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:48:23 +0100

...I don't know if any of you followed Oprah's blog about this. There were 160 pages of comments. I got to it late...and started posting around page 120 or so. It is interesting reading. One can get a grasp on what mainstream society thinks about the issue. Most telling was the number of people who posted stating they could understand someone changing their sex. The issue to most was that Thomas' sex wasn't changed. One can read all of the blog entried...and post...at this link: http://www.oprah.com/community/thread/44940?start=1920&tstart=0 I posted this in response to a transgendered FtoM who was replying to an earlier post I made. His defense was of my take on Thomas as well as slamming the transgender "spectrum". His question to me was to the effect that if there wasn't a gender spectrum, how did I explain someone who was intersexed. Here it is: What do you need explained? Why do you feel intersex conditions are pertinent to this conversation, to try to prove your gender spectrum nonsense? There are many different types of intersex conditions...so many, in fact, that the number is debated, as well as what even constitutes an intersex condition. Many AIS and PAIS people aren't even aware they have the syndrome; the medical research suggests that transsexuality is an intersex condition. Regardless, I fail to see how intersex conditions are pertinent to this discussion. If your point is that an intersex condition somehow validates someone having a neurological gender identity at odds with their anatomy, I agree with you. But that is not the issue. The intersex advocate's prime goal is to stop sex determination of infants at birth who have ambiguous genitalia. They advocate waiting until the person manifests a gender identity and is old enough to decide for themselves. I think that is prudent; basically, so does the rest of the planet. The point is these people do choose a gender identity. But, it is more complicated than that. Those intersexed with ambiguous genitalia never have fully functional genitals of both genders but combinations of both or anomalies of one or the other...some, as in the case of AIS, PAIS, and other conditions often don't have ambiguous genitalia at all. If at some point an intersex person develops gender issues, and it is anything but a given they will, and if gender reassignment surgery is in their cards, they are up against the same issues that any other transsexual would face. The issue here is someone who says they identify as male, yet chooses to keep their female reproductive system. I have followed the posts here and, to me at least, it is obvious that the vast majority has a handle on transsexualism and someone changing their sex; most don't seem to have a problem with that, and they shouldn't. But that same majority has a major problem with someone such as Thomas who identifies as male, claims to be male, yet desires to also be a mother, became pregnant, and now says he is a man who is pregnant. I have a problem with that as well. I have the same issue with those who claim to be female, yet choose not to have gender reassignment surgery and keep their penis. Men don't aspire to be pregnant, the quintessential trait of females...the ability to bear offspring...it is one of the most innate of female biological characteristics. And women do not have penises...period. In any other circumstance I would go to the wall to defend Thomas' gender identity and the decision not to have gender reassignment surgery until GRS surgical techniques afforded to female-to-male TS's improve. However...and it's a huge however...at the point Thomas decided, by choice, to not only keep his reproductive bits but become pregnant, my support evaporated. - Susan

...

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:28:07 +0100

If what he really wants, for some reason, is a biological child, why couldn't he have donated an egg to a surrogate. For a man, that would seem a preferable way to do it than to go though a pregnancy. If he is staying on T for the pregnancy, I doubt it will go full term, and God help the child. But the article is correct, his ova wouldnt be working anyway with all the T. This looks like a hoax of some sort. - Diana

...

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:19:31 +0100

I have my doubts about this person too; I agree that no HBS, FtM, would even think of carrying a baby to term, let alone desiring to be impregnated. I agree that there either NO therapist involved in this persons transition or else that therapist needs here ethics and qualifications examined. This came up on another surgeons Yahoo Group and of course all the TG's and "trans-xxx forever" immediately said "oh how wonderful, etc etc." I agree that it will make HBS look like a "lifestyle" choice or some type of fetish activity and NOT something that is a lifetime drive and compulsion. Sad about John Seymur, typical reaction of a koolaid drinker; no logic, bad spelling and name calling. Pamela - Pamela

Dear Mr Seymur

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:09:45 +0100

Learn to read. When you learn, come back again and reread the column (or perhaps read it for the first time). All of your questions will be answered. Where did I say I was against her for being happy? And, again for the record, I am not transgendered, we are not transgendered, HBS are not transgender: we were born with a neurobiological birth condition that is rectified by surgery. HBS sex is fixed inside the brain before birth and does not change. Surgery brings the genital incongruity into conformity with the brain. BTW your ad hominem name calling drips with the stench of testosterone and presumed male perogative. Grow up. - Lisa Thompson

What are you talking about?

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:57:13 +0100

Why be against someone for doing what they can to be happy. What are you, some kind of frickin self-hater transgender? You atrn't a trnsgender at all. You are just another fric bigot. - John Seymur