Surely everyone has heard about Thomas Beatie by now. Right? You know, “Mr.” Thomas Beatie, the pregnant man? I tried to ignore this silly story, but after a quick visit to Oprah’s web site I just can’t help but ask: “Have we lost our freakin’ minds!!!” Oprah’s web site says:
Thomas is 34, happily married and … pregnant. Our cameras capture it all-the ultrasound, inside the nursery and more. How is this possible?
“How is this possible?” How is it possible?!? What kind of idiotic question is that?!? How is it possible? I’ll tell you how it is possible! Thomas Beatie is a woman who had a sex change operation that did not go beyond the surface level. Said differently, her female reproductive equipment was left undisturbed and intact. She’s a woman with a few outward male attachments. Yes, she radically accessorized, but she is still female inside, obviously. How did this happen!?! Are Oprah and her people really, really stumped on this one? Is the answer really that far from sound reason and understanding? Really, is it?
I hate to be the bearer of reasonable news, but a man did not get pregnant! A biological woman with a male attachment and testosterone injections got pregnant via a sperm donor and a home insemination kit! Is this really that mystifying?
The incomprehensible befuddlement on the part of people like Oprah sets a precedent that could lead us into years and years of absolute idiocy and stupefaction regarding gender and species identification. For example, if I fix a set of antlers to the top of a female dog’s head, and the dog breeds and births a litter of pups, will I - can I - announce to the world that for the very first time a deer has given birth to puppies? Perhaps.
Also, if Thomas Beatie honestly claims a male identity, to the point of having a sex change, then why the happy parade around the globe as a “pregnant” man? Seriously, which is it? If this is truly rooted in gender identity, then why the comfort with this sort of “less-than-male” press and notoriety? Men don’t get pregnant; women do. I do not know one man on this earth who wants to be pregnant. Maybe I don’t know many men? Regardless, this inches towards another question I have had for some time re: gender identity and homosexuality: if gender identity is at times truly rooted in the gender one was not biologically equipped with, then is that person really a homosexual? In other words, if a biologically equipped woman centers gender identity in maleness and decides to partner with a woman to meet the desires and urges facilitated by this maleness, then wouldn’t they be a “heterosexual” couple, or are they still two gay women, in spite of the claimed gender identification of either party? Seriously, is gender identity and the heterosexuality that would unarguably accompany it trumped by homosexuality? Or is it all just a bit confused? Questions loom about all of this, obviously. Personally, I think this question forces a choice: homosexuality or gender exchange. I’m not sure you can do both, and remain reasonable in rationale or justification. These are serious questions. I humbly ask them with respect and much love in Christ Jesus.
Beyond the seeming societal parody, satire, and disintegration, I must ask a deeply theological and deeply serious question: “what does God have to do with any of this stuff?” I am neither a social conservative, nor am I a religious fundamentalist, but I can’t help but wonder when we finally cross that line? I honestly believe we can cross it. Do you?
23 Comments
So … a faux hermaphrodite is pregnant. It will be interesting to see if s/he can carry the pregnancy to full term with all of those male hormones running around in his/her body.
I have a good friend who was married about 15 years ago. As it turned out her husband wanted to be a woman. Eventually, he followed through on that desire and had surgery to become a woman. They are divorced. The divorce was very difficult. The husband admitted to my friend that he wanted to remain married to her after he became a woman, if she was willing. She was not and found the idea thorough distasteful. She loved him, but that was too much to overcome.
I don’t know what to do with people who feel as though they’ve been born into the wrong body. Certainly, there is ample evidence that this has existed throughout history. Why it happens I think still remains a mystery.
Can we cross a line? I think so. I think we may have. I’m not so sure we should be playing around in this particular garden. This smacks of hubris … and if I might say, I think we’re approaching Babel again. Does that make sense? We are trying to be God.
I tend to agree, Sonja. I think the most difficult thing in this story for me to comprehend is the amazement and almost miracle-like expression some in the media are attaching to this event. Oprah and her people ask, “How is the possible!” As if they actually think, or want the rest of us to think, that a biological man was impregnated miraculously. Thomas Beatie has been running around town calling it a miracle and really trying to hard sell the idea that she is the first ever pregnant man. It’s an assault on pretty basic intelligence, IMHO.
Shawn,
Interesting. I agree that to indicate that it is miraculous for a person with female reproductive organs to be pregnant is insulting to everyone’s intelligence. Funny comment about the deer antlers. :)
I personally believe that issues of confused sexuality and gender identity are symptomatic of brokenness. I don’t really know or understand whether that brokenness is solely spiritual/emotional or if there are biological elements as well.
Grace, you say that well. I think we all should approach any discussion of sexual identity with honest to God humility.
Re: your question concerning whether the brokenness can be spiritual/emotional and/or biological … I think it can be and is both.
Thomas Beatie has stopped his testosterone treatments and his levels are probably comparable to yours, Sonja (women also have T in their bodies–there was an interesting NPR piece on it a while ago if you do a Google search).
Yes, it is a complex issue (gender identity), and I don’t think it can be reduced to sexual attraction, since there are FTMs attracted to men and vice versa. Certainly who you are attracted to is one element of your gender identity, but it isn’t constitutive of it, either.
I have no idea why Beatie went on Oprah, except for perhaps wanting to draw attention to the phenomenon so that the medical community and society in general might respond differently (apparently he’s had trouble with doctors).
And, for what it’s worth, in Canada, persons transitioning from female to male have to get hysterectomies to be considered legally male. Perhaps the intention is also to draw attention to the rights of individuals to determine their bodies? I’m not sure, but it’s given me a lot more impetus to read and also to understand my trans friends.
Hi, ck. I’m not sure where you see a reducing of gender identity to sexual attraction in the above post …
Are you sure that you are not simply reacting to the rational flimsiness and/or destruction of your own attempt at “neat metaphysical categories?” After all, without the buttress of a strong biological attestation (something the “neat metaphysical categories” as expressed by those who champion things like heterosexuality, gender identity, and female pregnancy can in fact claim), these categories (or attempts at replacement categories) already tilt, do they not? If these categories are already tilting all on their own, then this sort of questioning does very little to push them all the way over … Are you sure that’s not what is going on, rather than a reducing of gender identity to sexual attraction? Just asking because I think it’s easy to sling the accusation of reduction in one’s attempt to argue. I also think it [the charge of reduction], in this specific case, smacks of a sort of logical hypocrisy because if the charge works here, then I can aim it right back at you and claim the same thing, from the other side of the coin. And where would that get us?
I am willing to bet that Beatie did not go on Oprah to win the support of the medical community. Seriously.
The argumentation and philosophy inherent to this entire situation are cognitively entertaining, and I love thinking through it all, but I must say that none of these fun things make the situation happier. It is sad. The whole thing smacks of a brokenness that goes beyond deep. No one that I have found is even asking about the effects all of this will have on the child. Have we thought about that yet? Do we want too? Beyond the logic, argumentation, and philosophical meandering, there is the theology. What does God have to do with this? What does redemption have to do with it? Is this the best thing for the lives involved? I’m going to go out on a non-politically correct limb and say absolutely not.
Thanks, ck.
PS> The “neat metaphysical categories” reference was plucked from your own comments on your blog re: this subject.
“I’m not sure where you see a reducing of gender identity to sexual attraction in the above post …”
I didn’t…I was just musing further on your questions about the links between gender identity and homosexuality. No accusations, here, just thinking out loud. I’ll go back to thinking on my own blog, though. Thanks! :)
Hey, feel free to muse! Your thoughts are welcome here. We may not agree on all of them, but you are welcome here, ck. You should know that by now, right?
Anytime …
With respect, some of the posters here are making light of gender identity and it’s not really constructive; it’s insulting.
Sexual and gender identity is an extremely complex issue; it’s not as simple as black-and-white, and there is plenty of science to support this.
Even as a gay man, I find gender identity issues difficult to grasp; let me be the first to admit my discomfort with transsexuals, whether they’re pre-op, post-op, or somewhere in the middle. Still, I have to acknowledge that there are documented instances of “men-trapped-in-women’s-bodies” and “women-trapped-in-men’s-bodies” that are defined clinically and scientifically, not morally and religiously; this is an issue of biochemistry and psychology, not ethics.
While I agree that there is some legitimate concern for the fetus given the hormone treatments that this person has been subjected to, dismissing it as media sensationalism and “brokenness” is a disservice to all parties concerned.
Mr. Beatie might have the internal plumbing of a woman, but has alway had the mind - and soul - of a man. And given the rapid advancement of genetic medicine, the issue of “men” giving birth may well day not be restricted to those who were born women in the very near future.
If you’re going to debate the ethical dimensions of this topic, please do so in an adult manner.
@Jeff: Thanks for the thoughts. I’m not sure where you are reading immaturity or insult into any of the above comments. The only immaturity I see is on the part of Oprah and like-headed media who try to play this off as some sort of miracle. A “man” did not get pregnant, a woman did. Sorry if that offends you, but it is not immature to say so.
As a man, I could say that some people in this story are making light of my gender and gender identity as a male. Right?
I’d disagree with that Shawn on the grounds that gender identity goes beyond the plumbing that one comes into the world with.
I’m inclined to agree with you that the media likes sensationalism, but since I haven’t seen the Oprah interview with this person I don’t know if she’s capitalizing on the odd tabloid nature of the topic (”Man Gives Birth!”) or if she was focusing on gender identity over genitalia.
I do find the use of the term “brokenness” insulting as a description for people dealing with their gender identity in the context that “Grace” used it. I think it’s applicable in terms of biochemistry and physiology as something clearly isn’t right, but her response juxtaposes the word against “biological elements,” leading me to assume she’s passing some sort of moral or ethical judgment on these people.
Again, I freely admit that I am not totally comfortable around people who are dealing with the issue of gender identity - especially people who are undergoing surgery or hormonal therapy to address it. However, I like to think that I’m a big enough person to admit my bias, attempt to deal with it objectively as best I can, and see it as a biological condition I need to accept rather a personal failing I can write-off.
In other words, my personal hang-ups about people dealing with gender identity are my issues; I’m the one whose “broken” in that regard, not the person whose condition I am uncomfortable with. Transferring my issues back onto them and labeling them “broken” 1) unfairly lets me off the hook and makes the object of my discomfort the problem instead of my own biases, and 2) frames the situation as something that can be “fixed.”
Obviously, with surgery, gender-identity issues can be “fixed,” but only if #1 doesn’t result in the imposition of my (or another actor other than the person with the gender identity issue) beliefs about the “original plumbing” dictating what the “fix” should be.
There’s also the issue of where genetic medicine and genetic manipulation will take us in the future. It’s not at all unrealistic to foresee in the not-too-distant future where men can be “equipped” with the “plumbing” to carry a child to term. The issue of gay and/or single men doing this aside, there’s also the very real scenario of happily married couples and widowers who might want children, but are incapable because the female partner isn’t physically capable of carrying the child to term (especially if she happens to be dead!).
This has already happened with women whose husbands have died, and with men whose wives have died and/or are infertile but who have the financial resources to hire a surrogate mother. However, in a few years it’s entirely possible that all that will be needed in the latter case is DNA from the mother and a geneticist and a surgeon who can grow and implant a uterus into a man’s abdomen.
If and when this comes to pass, I’d hope the religious community can do better than ridicule the parent and patronize the offspring. I’m not saying that that’s what’s going on here, but I do see a missed opportunity to address Mr. Beatie’s stated desire of keeping the pregnancy “in the family” by discussing the merits of that position on its face value
Even if this particular instance isn’t a genuine, heartfelt issue of two people trying to bring a child into the world for it’s own sake, the issue itself is and still will be out there.
Biologically, a man did not get pregnant. Mr. Beatie may have “felt” like a man - for whatever reason - but men don’t get pregnant, women do. I’m not sure how you are going to argue that specific point differently, if at all. If anything, it goes to show that our biology and feelings may not match, but biology sort of trumps feeling as far as gender and pragmatism is concerned. Mr. Beatie is a woman, regardless if she feels like it or not. The proof? She got pregnant! No amount of socially liberal verbiage is going to change this fact. It’s insane to try to change it in spite of the facts in front of us!
Your attempt to reinterpret and turn the theological “brokenness” being referenced here back onto those who referenced it is ridiculous. Your added suggestion that the religious community prepare itself to happily embrace things like future genetic manipulation is equally ridiculous.
Sorry, Jeff. You do not have a supporter in me. What is going on here, and the future things you are pointing at cross a very real line that should not be crossed. I am not a social conservative, nor am I a fundamentalist, but “biological women who ‘feel’ as if they are really men and start gender switching but still want to be pregnant” are not only confused but also broken …
We all are broken …
You will not make a supporter out of me, and you will not see me retracting the reference of brokenness that was made in this situation. It is a horribly broken world wherein women think they are men but still want to get pregnant. It’s a horribly broken world wherein identity is so confused.
This is not a judgment on the people involved in this story, but an invite to cry together and invite God into the situation and see what God does with it. It is not my desire to be divided over any issue, but there does come a time when God’s people must call brokenness … brokenness. There comes a time when everyone must repent and reach for God’s best plan for all of our lives. So, thank you very much for your comments and thoughts, but there is no way on earth that you are going to convince me that transgendered pregnant men are a good idea and if the Christian community doesn’t accept/embrace it then it is WE (the religious community) who are broken. I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t make sense.
NOTE: I would be surprised if any major world religion would support/embrace any of this. We are speaking from a Christian context, but have you considered the fact that the possibility that no major world religion would accept/embrace this is very, very high? Doesn’t that concern you?
Also, you still haven’t answered my question to you: Do not the people involved in this story do a disservice to my gender identity and understanding as a male? Shouldn’t that be a concern? Or is it all about satisfying their feelings, in spite of all else?
Thanks for the F-book add, Jeff! I hope you understand that while we can seriously disagree on this subject, and specifics regarding it, I respect you and would appreciate friendship (even if only virtual) above all else.
Jeff, if I may carefully step into the conversation again?
I think you may have misunderstood the manner in which many of us are using the term “broken.” It’s a theological term referring back to the state of perfection in which God created us all and thus we are all “broken” in some way from that state of perfection. We all have different issues that keep us from being who we want to be. I don’t mean to trivialize gender identity issues here because I do know that those cut very deeply.
I’ve had limited exposure to people with gender identity issues. I can’t imagine the pain that they must experience and the questioning of themselves must be unbearable at times. I do understand all of that. But I don’t think that necessarily means we need a medical solution to their problem.
Perhaps there are other solutions. Other avenues to explore. I’m not convinced that playing God (and whether or not you believe in a god, we are taking on the role of creator when we muck around in these areas) is the best solution to this problem. It’s like a hydras head, cut off one serpent and nine more spring to life in it’s place.
I’d also like to say this about the whole thing, as a woman.
This makes me pretty angry. Being able to have children is the one thing we women have. Now a man (albeit a fake man) wants to take that away too. Men own the world and now they want the one (painful, crappy, hard) thing that women have.
Until the men are ready to deal with a FULL lifetime of hormonal imbalance, menses and everything else … they can keep their damn greedy hands off pregnancy and childbearing.
@Sonja: Preach, sister! I think this issue does a serious disservice to those of who appreciate our gender identity (i.e., men who embrace and celebrate biological maleness and women who embrace and celebrate biological femaleness). I feel as if “a pregnant man” does a disservice to my gender identity as much as it does a disservice to the female identity that claims pregnancy.
This has nothing to do with gender egalitarianism, which absolutely requires gender identity to even work … Said differently, if you bleach gender identity in the ways being perpetuated here, then you bleach gender egalitarianism ’till it too is no longer sensible or relevant. Think about it.
Social liberalism does this a lot. In its effort to speak to issues that honestly need to be addressed it destroys everything else in its reckless wake. So, rather than deep Interfaith conversation, we see a reduction of all faith identity to the lowest common denominator and we call it unity. It is not unity because there is nothing identifiable left to unify! It is a generic philosophy built upon the lowest common denominator and advertised as “faith.” It doesn’t work in the real world. Social liberals do the same thing with gender, as you can see here in this situation. Their methodology is to reduce all gender to the lowest common denominator and then call what is left a “unified identity” when in reality what is left is neither unified, nor identifiable. This is what social liberalism does. It is not healthy and it does not work. It’s a knee-jerk reaction with good motives but bad game.
Now, before someone tries to foolishly call me a social conservative, let me say that I am not one of those either. I’m trying hard to sail above and beyond both detrimental social limitations.
Thanks for the welcome above–I simply stepped back because I didn’t want to elevate the discussion into the perception of attack or malicious argument.
That said, just one note on this comment: “I would be surprised if any major world religion would support/embrace any of this.”
You might want to look at hijras and Two Spirit people (also called ‘berdache’ but that’s usually considered pejorative).
Interpreting gender in other cultures is difficult (it’s hard enough in one’s own), but there seems to be some evidence of third-gender and/or transgenderism around the world. Of course, under Christian theology, that could merely be evidence of pervasive brokenness. However, it’s another piece of the puzzle.
Hey, ck. You are always welcome. Again, we may disagree, but that’s not anything but a disagreement. Interesting link (the second link didn’t work?). I’ve never heard of these expressions. I’m not sure they could be categorized under “major world religions,” could they?
Ok. I fixed up your second link, ck. It goes to Amazon, right? At any rate, these two expressions seem less like major world religions and more like fringe expressions within major world religions. Is that accurate? Note: the use of fringe is not meant to be pejorative at all; it’s just handy.
I wouldn’t say so, Shawn, or at least not for the hijras, who have central roles to play in reenacting certain Hindu festivals.
The ‘berdache’ phenomenon has been noted for a long time, back in American colonial history and also in other tribal cultures. (Thanks for fixing the link–I must have forgotten the http)
Anyway, there’s a lot of debate about whether to consider these individuals transgender, third-gender, or in between. Also, I don’t have a link for it, but there’s also a history within Islam of transgenderism–from what I can recall (I’ll have to look for the citations), the Taliban supported it, despite their repressive nature in other ways, and in Iran, the government supports sex change operations. That is, of course, in an effort to avoid homosexuality.
I am not saying I have answers, but I’m trying to fit some pieces together. And I think that what Jeff may have been objecting to (though I won’t put words in his mouth) was the image of the antlers on the puppy. While humorous, it doesn’t do justice to the deep reality of lived experience as being gendered.
I’m not a radical constructivist, I don’t think, but I can see how “gender” (as opposed to sex) is constructed through the responses of others to us and our own self-experience. Puppies don’t have conceptions of how they *should* be–people do. And for those whose conception of *should* is at odds with the world’s image of them, it can be very painful.
That shouldn’t denigrate your experience as a male gendered person…and many “social liberals” as you describe them would say there is a multiplicity of genders, not just *two*, which means that instead of some bare thing we all have in common, there are lots of ways of being a gender.
Anyway, that’s about all I’ve got–just wanted to point you to a few places in case you or your readers wanted to look at more info.
Off to lesson planning…
ck, you wrote, “I’m not a radical constructivist, I don’t think, but I can see how “gender” (as opposed to sex) is constructed through the responses of others to us and our own self-experience. Puppies don’t have conceptions of how they *should* be - people do. And for those whose conception of *should* is at odds with the world’s image of them, it can be very painful.”
I hear what you are saying, ck. The painful aspects of all this are very serious and I think they point to something a lot bigger than another’s image of what one should or shouldn’t be. Seriously, I don’t think the pain you cite is totally rooted in other people’s opinions. If so, then add another layer of dysfunction onto the issue.
Furthermore, if Beatie actually did have a conception of what he should or shouldn’t be, she obliterated both by:
1. Claiming to be male somewhere inside of herself.
2. Starting the gender switch to bridge her male feelings and outward appearance (her switch did not affect her biology or internal physiology).
3. Wanting to be feminine/pregnant (men don’t want to be pregnant and can’t be pregnant naturally).
See the mess? If Beatie was male there would not be such comfort with pregnancy, unless she suddenly announces she is a male with feminine desires … and I’ll stop thinking at that point because it would spiral into absurdity.
So, I’m not entirely sure Beatie does have a conception of how she should or shouldn’t be, and I’m not sure she cares about the opinions of others all that much. In fact, I would say, with respect, that by your definition of the self-awareness of puppies as regards the conceptions of “should or should not” superimposed upon them by others, Beatie is right there with them.
Again, this is all cognitive exercise, but I honestly believe this is a result of separating one’s identity from that of Christ’s. Therein, wholeness is found and the confusion ceases. You know where I’m coming from with that, ck. So, thanks for enduring my need to simply say what I believe. In light of all of this, surely it doesn’t seem so far-fetched, right?
i think it is pretty awesome, and random:)