Pictures of Thomas Beatie, the married and pregnant Oregon man, this week moved from The Advocate (and, in sensationalized versions, the tabloids) to the mainstream media as Beatie appeared on Oprah. Not so surprisingly, as the original first-person Advocate piece made perfectly clear, Beatie is a transgendered man who was born a female named Tracy Lagondino, but had gender reassignment surgery and is now legally male and married to a woman. He decided to carry a baby for his wife, Nancy, who has had a hysterectomy.
The only thing "shocking" about this story is the widespread revelation that in the United States a woman can only marry another woman, and a man can only marry another man, if they are first "surgically adjusted." That's fine for those who are, in fact, transgendered, but doesn't help those of us who are gay and lesbian with no desire to go under the knife in order to gain the right to wed (or to marry and become parents through adoption or surrogacy.)
A churlish thought: If gay people are expected to delay anti-discrimination protections until the transgendered are also covered, shouldn't the transgendered forgo the right to wed?
Too Transgressive? Commenter "Another Steve" writes:
Sorry, but this is a shocking and disturbing development.... We're told that transgendered people identify completely with the opposite gender of their birth and so need sexual reassignment surgery. But if this transgendered "man" decides to become pregnant -- the most womanly thing imaginable -- then what's going on here beyond transgression for its own sake?
We'll, live and let live, but the pictures are a bit unsettling.
More. David Letterman has some fun (view here). Activists complain, "David Letterman Mocks Trans Man."
32 Comments for “No April Fooling”
posted by Brian Miller on
If gay people are expected to delay anti-discrimination protections until the transgendered are also covered, shouldn’t the transgendered forgo the right to wed?
You’ve just underscored why the collectivist impulse behind so-called “anti-discrimination protections” is so dangerous. It creates resentment and entitlement, which transforms into a “if I don’t get my special employment rights, well then transgender people shouldn’t get their equal treatment under the law.”
Gay men who work for homophobic employers can find a new job. Any gay man or woman who would deliberately work for homophobes is a fool.
Transgender people cannot be expected to put their lives on hold — and give up their equal rights — just so that gay men and women can get job placement quotas.
Sorry.
posted by Avee on
Brian, I suspect Steve is being facetious. He says, “If gay people are expected to delay anti-discrimination protections…,” (as many activists declare) then shouldn’t trangenders forgo marriage. He’s just pointing out the inconsistency in the logic (sic) of LGBT activists.
posted by Jeremy on
Brian,
You assume a level of economic solvency on the part of gay men that is stereotypically assumed by straight people all the time. We are not all wealthy enough to simply quit our jobs and subject ourselves to weeks, perhaps months, of unemployment simply because our boss is a homophobe.
What happens, also, if we really like the job? What if the work I do there feeds my soul and makes me truly happy?
Changing a job, while nowhere near as extreme a change as surgical sex reassignment, is indeed a major life change that–yes–not every gay man can afford to undertake. Or wants to.
posted by Brian Miller on
You assume a level of economic solvency on the part of gay men that is stereotypically assumed by straight people all the time.
No I don’t. I post from a working/middle class gay perspective.
We are not all wealthy enough to simply quit our jobs and subject ourselves to weeks, perhaps months, of unemployment simply because our boss is a homophobe.
Who has declared that you should subject yourself to weeks, perhaps months, of unemployment?
There’s nothing wrong with job-hunting, and seeking out employers who have a strong non-discrimination policy.
Changing a job, while nowhere near as extreme a change as surgical sex reassignment, is indeed a major life change that–yes–not every gay man can afford to undertake.
Utter melodrama. The average American will change jobs seven times during his working life.
Don’t be lazy, and don’t make yourself a victim. If you spend, on a daily basis, as much time getting your skills up to snuff and hunting for fulfilling employment as you’ve spent developing an argument for why you “have to work for homophobes,” you’ll be a lot more successful in the long term.
posted by Another Steve on
The only thing “shocking” about this story is the widespread revelation that in the United States a woman can only marry another woman, and a man can only marry another man, if they are first “surgically adjusted.”
Sorry, but this is a shocking and disturbing development that seems intent on transgression for its own sake. We’re told that transgendered people identify completely with the opposite gender of their birth and so need sexual reassignment surgery. But if this transgendered “man” decides to become pregnant — the most womanly thing imaginable — then what’s going on here beyond transgression for its own sake? It’s representative of the whole murky issue of “transgenderism” and how it obscures the basic rights that gay people are trying to achieve.
posted by Leo on
Your attitude is glib. Not everyone is in IT or accounting. Depending on the industry, the job type and the locale it isn’t that easy to just go out and find a comparable job.
Certain sectors of the economy have been slow to create jobs, especially more senior level, better paying jobs. I can go many weeks without seeing anything remotely appropriate listed on Monster, Hot Jobs or any other job board. And it has nothing to do with letting my skills go to seed. And no at 45 I’m not able to pick up and relocate?I have a partner and elderly parents to consider.
What may apply to some industries doesn’t apply to all. Get a grip and a clue.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Hey, at least the transgendered dude sticks to the LGBTQ agitprop on same-sex marriage:
Unlike those in same-sex marriages, domestic partnerships, or civil unions, Nancy and I are afforded the more than 1,100 federal rights of marriage.
Aargh. I’m so proud to see Queers doing their part to increase mathematical illiteracy.
This 8-page PDF summarizes the methodology used by the General Accounting Office to obtain an official figure of 1,138 federal statutes, and explains why the actual number of benefits is far smaller.
For starters, the 1,138 total includes 104 statutes relating specifically to spouses of military veterans; 34 statutes applicable only to farm-owning couples; 20 that apply only when one spouse can legally claim American Indian status and the other spouse is legally non-Indian; approximately 10 that address financial aid for spouses of coal miners who’ve died from black lung disease; and at least two statutes pertaining to benefits for retired Lighthouse Operators and their spouses.
So, for married heterosexual households in which neither husband nor wife is a military veteran, a farm owner, a Native American, a coal miner dying of pneumoconiosis, or a retired Lighthouse Operator, that’s about 170 “rights” they’re being cruelly cheated out of!
Here, by the way, is a long PDF of the GAO’s original 1997 report that came up with a total of 1,049 federal statutes in which marital status was in any way relevant; the 1,138 figure was obtained in a 2004 update.
posted by Brian Miller on
Depending on the industry, the job type and the locale it isn’t that easy to just go out and find a comparable job.
No kidding. That’s why the average person will go through seven career changes. I’ve changed careers twice since graduating from university 11 years ago. That’s the modern economy.
And no at 45 I’m not able to pick up and relocate?I have a partner and elderly parents to consider.
Sorry, you’re making excuses for why you’re a victim. I also have elderly parents to care for (though no partner), and the idea that a federal law will suddenly revoke homophobia and solve every labor problem still strikes me as a pipe dream.
Especially given that anybody who wants to fire you because you’re gay will still be able to do so even after passage of an ENDA law. They can just cite the slow economy, bad economic conditions, and high employee costs you’ve just complained about and say “sorry, Mr. Queer, but we’re just going to have to let you go.”
So, for married heterosexual households in which neither husband nor wife is a military veteran, a farm owner, a Native American, a coal miner dying of pneumoconiosis, or a retired Lighthouse Operator, that’s about 170 “rights” they’re being cruelly cheated out of!
Including such minor things as equal tax treatment, equal immigration treatment, and equal property transfer privileges.
I’ll never understand the efforts to pooh-pooh anti-gay marriage discrimination, just like I’ll never understand the efforts to encourage gay people to view themselves as victims trapped in bad jobs who only the feds can rescue with special-rights legislation.
Yeesh. Let’s get equal rights under the law before we start demanding special rights for people who are too unmotivated and uncreative to change their own work-life circumstances for the better.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Throbert McGee, speaking recently Barry Obama has rounded up that number to 1200 “protections” now… do these guys even think for themselves anymore or just adopt whatever “facts” the special interest group fronts as reality?
When your candidate supports your positions without inteernally adopting them through thoughtful consideration, it usually means the candidate’s support will be weak and dispensible. Kind of like the famous BillClinton/Geo Steppie line of “we kept all the campaign promises we intended to keep”.
posted by Brian Miller on
When your candidate supports your positions without inteernally adopting them through thoughtful consideration, it usually means the candidate’s support will be weak and dispensible.
You’re not arguing that the Democrats are being disingenuous and have no intention of meeting their campaign promises to LGBT people, are you?
Why, Obama’s a 21st century Bill Clinton!
And look at all the successes gay people had under the original Bill Clinton.
We got the military’s anti-gay policy.
We got the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act.
We did very well under Bill Clinton! He’s the greatest! You Log Cabinettes cannot argue otherwise! 😉
posted by Throbert McGee on
Throbert McGee, speaking recently Barry Obama has rounded up that number to 1200 “protections” now…
Heh! But I suppose you could argue that calling them “protections” is not necessarily untrue.
Obviously, some of the 1,100 statutes truly do confer benefits on married couples, and thus they’re protecting married people from the hardship of being without those benefits.
On the other hand, other statutes impose tax penalties of one kind or another, and thus can be said to “protect” the federal government from losing revenue to greedy married couples who selfishly want to keep as much of their earnings as possible.
And then there are a few statutes that impose neither benefits nor penalties, but simply require married persons and singles to be tallied separately for administrative purposes; one could argue that these statutes help “protect” data-entry clerks from having nothing to do…
posted by Arun on
As a gay man, may I say I am heartily sick of gay rights being tied together with people with transgender issues- tied together and then thrown over the boat to sink to the bottom of the sea.
Can I say too how tired I am of female-to-male transexuals like this one hijacking the conversation, running to the media so they can have stories like “Pregnant Man!”. So who was the sperm donor, I wonder about this story. I’m sure it’s been mentioned, but not in mainstream media.
IS IT THE HORMONES THAT MAKE EVERY FEMALE-TO-MALE TRANSSEXUALS such RAGING,EGOSTISTICAL assholes in every account I have to read about them? Sorry for shouting, but it’s true. A recent NYTimes article: Girl X goes to a women’s college, transitions, then loudly demands her rights at a women’s college NOW THAT SHE’s A MAN.
Step back and join me in a what-the FUCK moment here, at the illogic and petty adolescent entitlement issues we’re talking about here. The rage. The aggression.
Sorry. I’m gay. I like men, and i’m male. This whole “we have to support everyone with gender dysmorphia ever anywhere or else it’s a sellout” is egregious bullshit and folly to me.
I can’t relate, sorry. My loving another man and not wanting to be fired for that is on the cusp of understandable to society at large. Your desire to use science to flood your body with hormones and grow a prosthetic penis is not.
At this point, I can’t stand some of these transgendered activists, loud publicity whores. I’m gay but I do find their hostility misplaced and selfish. You can love women without a penis, no need to go to radical hormone therapy, fake penises, and a need for publicity and attention. Plus snottty attitude and aggression. I never signed up for this shit- I don’t care at this point.
All this failure to secure rights for gay American citizens, being hijacked by these people with deep-seated goddamn mental issues about gender. It’s a disgrace for our side, honestly. I’m supposed to say I respect TG people, and I do, but not when flamboyant narcissists actively impede legislation that will secure me some berth, some rights, after a long struggle.
Yeah, i’m a vanilla fag. But I truly can’t stand these impolitic monsters, speaking in our name.
posted by Craig2 on
Excuse me, but what does the actual medical and social scientific research about transgendered parents actually say? Surely that should be at the centre of this debate?
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Kewl on
It’s now time to add another letter to the alphabet soup that now denotes the gay community, so that we’ll have LGBTQP (P for preggo).
posted by Alpha on
I suppose the existence of female-to-male transsexuals just goes to show that there is such a thing as penis envy after all.
posted by Mark on
“I’m supposed to say I respect TG people, and I do…”
“You can love women without a penis, no need to go to radical hormone therapy, fake penises…”
Arun, your comments are just seething with respect. Someone needs to lay off the hormones, but it’s not the TG’s.
Sincerely,
Just another “vanilla fag”
(who would rather not have YOU “speaking in our name”)
posted by Richard on
Yeah, Brian! When will gay people wake up and realize that an unpopular minority would do well in a nation that believed in anarchy and surival of the fitess?
(sarcasm)
More to the point, when will the Libertarians admit that are really just Republicans who want to smoke pot? One stereotype for another, it would seem…
It does not sound like this is being done just for, “shi*ts and giggles”, as we used to say back when I was young.
Also, I am not doctor, but I reckon that “he” (born female) still has to have a certain amount of female reproductive organs in tact, if you will, to actually get pregnant from male sperm.
As to the continued mantra by our resident LP member ( for the record: I use to be one);
Unless you happen to be personal wealthy or famous, you are probably going to have to get a job. Unles you have a high level of skills/education then you have few options in terms of which jobs you take.
In the real world, most people need a job to pay for things like rent, food, gas, and maybe if they are really, really lucky health insurence.
Most LGBT people cannot move away to some magical ‘fairy land’ free of sexism and homophobia.
Gay men who work for homophobic employers can find a new job. Any gay man or woman who would deliberately work for homophobes is a fool.
Transgender people cannot be expected to put their lives on hold — and give up their equal rights — just so that gay men and women can get job placement quotas.
Sorry.
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
Brian, do I think things like ENDA are going to end homophobia, cure disease, feed the hungry or bring about world peace? Of course not. But, it’s easy to sit in SF and say “find another job.” It’s another to be in Fargo or Lubbock or Greenville and try to find this magical plethora of gay-friendly employers you keep dreaming of. The bottom line is that most people need to work. And, they should not have to move to NYC, DC, SF or any large city in order to find that work, due to the bigotry of others. Can a homophobic employer still find a way to fire a gay employee? Probably. But, things like ENDA are at least a start, and they’re FAR better than the alternative you keep throwing out here. Sorry Brian, but your pig in a dress argument is still a pig.
posted by Arun on
Mark- I respect TG people. I don’t respect TG people who are clearly attention-starved media whores, with a giant “FU-deal with it.” chip on their shoulder. You may have noticed it’s become a media freakshow.
What on Earth does my being gay have to do with people who want to flood their body with artificial hormones weekly and change sex? Gender dysmorphia and being gay are NOT the same thing.
Homosexuality is an eternal human condition, and a beautiful one- we are a part of nature, I truly believe this philosophically. Artificially, surgically changing sex is a 20th century invention, and while I support anyone’s choice to do this, I’m surely tired of my rights being tied to the transgendered, at my expense.
I cannot relate. Gay people have fought long and hard NOT to be labeled as mentally ill, but now we’re meant to throw our lot in with people whose grievance is about their feelings, who can’t deal with the hand they’re dealt by life.
Because i love men, I’ve often thought about how easy it would be if I were born a woman. Maybe philisophically, Karmically though, maybe I was born to be a man who loves other men. Maybe that’s just my life’s journey, the cross to bear, like a lot of us. I’ve made peace with this, I think gotten strength from it.
Surgically altering one’s body and being dependent on chemical treatments forever to maintain one’s gendered state sounds like hell to me. Sorry to be harsh, but I’ve yet to see a transsexual that wasn’t a pathetic imitation of an actual female. Nature is beautiful- and that includes the human body you were born with. If you have such active hatred of yourself, and the wonder of the body and gender you were given at birth that this supersedes all else- sorry, this becomes a mental health issue, to me.
Way too much damned baggage for me. And this “pregnant man” doing the media circuit for cash and attention disgusts me. I want nothing to do with people like this.
posted by Amicus on
Gee, no one freaked out when Arnold Schwartzenegger got pregnant in 1994.
pic of same:
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3801258240/tt0110216
posted by NG on
I’m trying to be open-minded, but this story has me a little stumped. If he really underwent gender-assignment surgery, how can he still get pregnant? It must have been only partial, which doesn’t make him fully a male. As “Another Steve” pointed out, if he still wants to bear children, doesn’t that contradict his wanting to be a man? Don’t transgenders have to continue taking hormones? If so, what effect is that going to have on the development of the baby?
I think this baby is going to have to go to Dr. Mephesto to sort it all out.
posted by Richard on
“Papa, dont preach, but I am in trouble now…”
I do believe that Sam Beckett beat Arnold by a few years, getting pregnant on the television series Quantum Leap.
posted by Jim on
“The only thing ‘shocking’ about this story is the widespread revelation that in the United States a woman can only marry another woman, and a man can only marry another man, if they are first ‘surgically adjusted.'”
Actually, surgical adjustment won’t be enough in a number of states. While rare enough to have been litigated under only a few state’s laws, here is a fairly recent handling of the matter in Kansas for those interested: http://www.kscourts.org/cases-and-opinions/opinions/supct/2002/20020315/85030.htm
Punchline: what biology creates male or female cannot be altered as a legal matter by man. In this case, the surgically altered “female” was legally male and therefore “her” marriage to the deceased was void and her (greedy) “step-son” got the whole of the decedent’s estate.
posted by Jorge on
Re: David Letterman “mocking” Thomas Beatie, I’m not going to defend this guy (Beatie) at all. This is basically a circus freak show act on daytime (and now late night) TV. The fact of how he got to be a pregnant man is pretty irrelevant. I agree with Stephen that it might bode very poorly for transgendered activism, especially if they feel obligated to call him one of their own.
posted by queerunity on
gender is not so equally defined as male or female. yes this person identifies as male but he says the ability to give birth is a human desire. who are we to judge anyway?
http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com
posted by NG on
gender is not so equally defined as male or female. yes this person identifies as male but he says the ability to give birth is a human desire. who are we to judge anyway?
Who are we to judge? We are (presumably) intelligent human beings with the capacity to debate this situation rationally and come to a conclusion about the moral implications of what was done here.
This isn’t a natural occurrence. Male and female (and hermaphrodite for some species) occur in nature. Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and bisexuality occur in nature. (Yes, Religious Right, homosexuality IS natural.) In this situation, doctors altered the natural state of one human being to be part male but left enough female intact to produce offspring. Was it ethically acceptable for them to do this? What are the implications for those involved, particularly the child? That’s what is being debated here, and we should not be so cowed by the PC Police that we are afraid to question the morality of the choices people make.
posted by Desch on
Basically it’s like this:
A woman in dire need of attention:
1. floods her body with male hormones
2. goes and gets inseminated (who’s paying for all this btw?)
3. hires a booking agent to parade before the nation in a freakshow, making all of us look bad.
Why is it that female-to-male TS’s are always telling us how very male, nay macho!, they’ve always felt to the core of their soul. And then this one purposefully gets pregnant- the most womanly thing posssible.
Add in a press campaign that seems DESIGNed to freak and gross people out, and what you have here is a selfish narcissist. It’s a total FU, in-your-face America, approach that has repeatedly proved to be unhelpful and backlash inspiring.
Those of us who are merely gay and want the most basic, ordinary rights in this society suffer when we’re lumped in with sensationalists like this. Scaring the horses, and all.
Screw this noise. This is not a marvel of science. This is a biological woman, who previously took some hormones, having a baby. This is not a “pregnant man”. Is she still taking male hormones during pregnancy?
I PRAY NOT.
Now that it’s been scorchingly, if clumsily mocked on SNL, I guess all of us gays can be glad we’ve all thrown our lots in with egotists like this, demanding America to “deal”, in the most hostile, juvenile way possible.
posted by Bobby on
I think it’s very offensive that a woman would become a man and then try to have a baby. It doesn’t make sense. Will she be able to breastfeed her baby?
Frankly, this sets transexuals back, her girlfriend could have had the baby, maybe they could have adopted. Now, if a biological man wanted to have a baby, I would have no problem with it, I’m all for science and it would be wonderful if gay couples could have biological babies without involving women. Just like I’m sure lesbians would love to do the same without involving men.
However, this story is beyond my comprehension, and frankly, she shouldn’t go around parading her pregnancy. In the movie Junior, Arnold Schwartznegger goes through great pains to keep his baby a secret, he did not want his child to become part of a media circus. Maybe she should learn that lesson.
posted by NG on
Will she be able to breastfeed her baby?
No, she had her breast removed as part of her sex reassignment surgery.
her girlfriend could have had the baby
No, her girlfriend could not bear children.
it would be wonderful if gay couples could have biological babies without involving women
I don’t think I could support that.
posted by Bobby on
“I don’t think I could support that.”
—So you support a woman becoming a man and then having a baby but you won’t support a genetic man having a baby? Am I missing something?
I have no problem with transexuals, if they want to go against their God given genders, fine. And if women want to become men, urinate standing up, have a penis, and say goodbye to menstruation, fine. Just as long as they accept that part of being a man is that you cannot have a baby. That’s the sacrifice you make.
But a female to male transexual that gets pregnant contradicts the whole spirit of becoming a man. And if that’s going to be allowed, and God knows what they’re gonna put in the birth certificate, then I say there’s nothing wrong with real men getting really pregnant. Oh, and I also support cloning. Why not? If biological reproduction is so important, if anyone who can breed must breed, then by God, allow every possible form of breeding to occur. I just can’t wait until science discovers an artificial uterus, then women and men will be able to check their babies development in a lab.
posted by NG on
So you support a woman becoming a man and then having a baby but you won’t support a genetic man having a baby? Am I missing something?
I never said that I would support it. If you look at some of the questions that I posted above, you’ll see that I have some serious reservations about it.
I’ve never understood transsexualism. Until recently, I just dismissed it as something I’d never be able to understand, but now, it is being tied so much to GLB issues, that I feel I no longer have a choice.
I have problems with scientific intervention mainly because it is never without consequences. I’m not sure about the most recent cloning techniques, but the early ones had serious health issues for the baby. Anyone so desperate to have a child that they’ll disregard the risks that they are putting on that child probably doesn’t deserve to have one in the first place.
posted by Bobby on
Thanks for the explanation, NG.
Well, I think transexualism falls under gender issues, not gay issues. The gay community is too inclusive if you ask me, now they new letters are GLBTQ, the “Q” is for “questioning.” So now we’re accepting people who are not even sure what they are. What’s next? GLBTQS? S for straights who get along with gays? It’s stupid.
Getting back to the issues you raise, you’re right, there’s always consequences with scientific discoveries. It’s a chance people take with every chemotherapy, antibiotic, exercize program, heart bypass, botox, etc.
As for the safety of babies, unless we demand a license to breed with approval and supervision from the state, there’s no guarantees in that department.
Thus, I’m fully suportive of science when it comes to individuals making choices without government cohersion. That includes the rights to seek or not to seek treatment.