Transgender man gives birth

ponderingturtle said:
The article about the OP clearly shows that men do have babies.
Click to expand...
No, the OP is about a woman who gave birth while living as a man. The OP clearly shows that objective reality remains unchanged despite one's delusions and compulsions.

And yet for millennia a little snip is all it took to turn a man into a eunuch.
Click to expand...
Eunuchs were boys who were castrated. Still males, just ball-less.

Yep just like men can only marry women of the same race. Women can't own property and so on.

Then there is my favorite little girls who grow up to be men.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/12/the-astonishing-village-where-little-girls-turn-into-boys-aged-1/

Thank god they don't actually exist.
Click to expand...
A total non-sequitur to anything I posted; however those "girls" were always boys; they simply lacked an enzyme in the womb. When puberty hits, their maleness becomes more apparent. It may be possible that transgendered people have similar enzyme/hormone issues. With better science will come better understanding. However, it's still disordered development.
 
Meadmaker said:
So then we have "A woman would then be any adult human who exhibits the gender attributes (especially gender identity) traditionally associated with the sex that produces egg cells"
Click to expand...
If you like? I think it might be easier if you just accepted a correction every now and then.

To me, I don't see any difference between that and "A woman is someone who has gender attributes of a woman".
Click to expand...
I do. The second sense is different from the first, and that renders the definition non-circular.

If you prefer, a woman is:

1. an adult human female
2. someone who has the gender attributes of a woman1.

There's nothing circular about that second sense. It just has a dependency on the (different) first sense, kind of like how our definition of woman1 depends on the definition of female, and especially in understanding that it isn't synonymous with woman.

Apparently, that particular attribute isn't all that significant.
Click to expand...
It is significant--it's how we determine which sex is female. It just isn't a gender attribute. Recall that gender is concerned with social, cultural, and psychological differences.

It didn't use to be fuzzy and indistinct, and I'm not confident that its current fuzziness is a sign of progress.
Click to expand...
It's always been fuzzy and indistinct. That's the reality--biology is complex, and we're trying to reduce extreme complexity down to a category with two members. We're fond of saying things like "life beings at the point of conception", but in reality there is no point of conception. There's a fuzz of conception.

Taking that on board does constitute progress, because its allows us to deal with the world as it actually is, and develop our simplifying assumptions in light of that, rather than just projecting received beliefs onto the world. Which is why there's a great deal of irony in all the people yammering on about "objective reality."
 
ponderingturtle said:
The article about the OP clearly shows that men do have babies.
Click to expand...

Yay for circular definitions!

- A trans man had babies!
- It was a woman. Men can't have babies.
- Obviously they can, since this one did.

Or...

- Hey, I went to London by car!
- You took a plane. Cars don't fly.
- Obviously they can, since this one did.
 
mumblethrax said:
There's nothing circular about that second sense. It just has a dependency on the (different) first sense, kind of like how our definition of woman1 depends on the definition of female, and especially in understanding that it isn't synonymous with woman.
Click to expand...

We seem to be getting somewhere. So would you say that the transgender "man" who gave birth is a man, but not a male? That is to say, he's a man in terms of gender, but his sex is female?
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
We seem to be getting somewhere. So would you say that the transgender "man" who gave birth is a man, but not a male? That is to say, his gender is male, but his sex is female?
Click to expand...

Sex: Female
Gender: Male
Hair: Female
Eyes: Male
Hands: Female
Hips: Male
Lips: Male
Bank Account: Female
Car: Female
Fashion sense: Female

Result: 60% Female
 
Cavemonster said:
Yes, but specifically it says that it refers to traits typically associated with sex.

It does not say that those traits are necessarily an expression of sex. You seem to be tossing out the words "typically" and "associated".
Click to expand...
Part of what makes the matter fuzzy. We've become less rigid in what constitutes "typically associated". When describing typical female behavior, cultural, and psychological traits, what even are those? Women can fall along a pretty wide spectrum in all these areas.

They may be typically more nurturing, wear their hair in longer or softer styles, dress in certain clothing, be less aggressive in career pursuits, etc., but any given woman is likely to have these traits to a greater or lesser extent or not at all. And many possess traits "typically associated" with males. I know "girly-girl" women and "mannish" women, and every type in between. The same with men - macho? effeminate? what defines typical?

If we can't determine or assign a "gender" based solely on how many of these traits one does or does not possess, then it becomes up to the individual to tell us how they want to be seen and to live their lives in society (what difference would it make to a hermit, after all?)

For most of us, it's not something we have to worry about. We got parts, we go with it and fall somewhere along our respective male or female spectrum. For others, apparently the disconnect between the parts and the traits is so large that they feel compelled to switch teams, as it were.
 
Brainster said:
We seem to be getting somewhere. So would you say that the transgender "man" who gave birth is a man, but not a male? That is to say, his gender is male, but his sex is female?
Click to expand...
I think that's where we've always been. That's what it means to be transgendered--that your gender identity doesn't match your birth sex. The only thing this guy needed to do to get pregnant was stop hormone therapy.
 
ponderingturtle said:
And of course if you can't have babies you are not a woman. Simple.
Click to expand...

No one has said that. It is this simple. A man cannot have a baby. To have a baby you need the female sex organs. Men do not have female sex organs. That is not saying that a woman who has had something like a hysterectomy or whatever is not a woman.

Now, I understand there are some people who feel like they have the wrong parts. I hope they live their life in whatever way makes them feel complete. If this person wants to call themselves a man they are free to do so. We are all free to call ourselves whatever we want.

To pretend that this is a case of a man having a baby is utter nonsense. This is simply a case of someone who wants to be, but is not currently, a man. I mean not biologically a man.
 
Last edited:
mike81 said:
No one has said that. It is this simple. A man cannot have a baby. To have a baby you need the female sex organs. Men do not have female sex organs. That is not saying that a woman who is had some thing like a hysterectomy or whatever is not a woman.
Click to expand...

And for example you can't judge by appearance because you have androgen insensitive males who look like women. That is why you need detailed medical information to class someone as male or female. And even then it can be tricky.
 
mumblethrax said:
I think that's where we've always been. That's what it means to be transgendered--that your gender identity doesn't match your birth sex. The only thing this guy needed to do to get pregnant was stop hormone therapy.
Click to expand...

So we have a person who is a man (gender is masculine), but not a male (because his sex is female). Great. Good terms.


Take down all the locker room signs that say "men" and replace them with ones that say "male", and it works for me.

Oh.......not everyone agrees? Hmmm.....figures.
 
Meadmaker said:
Take down all the locker room signs that say "men" and replace them with ones that say "male", and it works for me.

Oh.......not everyone agrees? Hmmm.....figures.
Click to expand...
You'll have to explain to me the biological need for separate locker rooms. I think that's all down to our curious social hangups, which implicates gender, not sex.
 
ponderingturtle said:
And for example you can't judge by appearance because you have androgen insensitive males who look like women. That is why you need detailed medical information to class someone as male or female. And even then it can be tricky.
Click to expand...

And for other 99.9% of the population it isn't tricky at all.
 
ponderingturtle said:
And of course if you can't have babies you are not a woman. Simple.
Click to expand...
Not simple. This is a logical fallacy (someone help me, I've forgotten the term).

All persons who can give birth are female.
This person cannot give birth.
___________________________________
Therefore: this person is not female.

This is a fallacy, because the statement "All persons who can give birth are female" does not exclude persons who cannot give birth, but simply includes in the term a certain group which is potentially a subset of all those who are female.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom