ancientjaguar (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
lady_kishiria) wrote2008-04-05 10:11 am
lady_kishiria) wrote2008-04-05 10:11 am
Entry tags:
Sex, gender and pregnant men
Oh no, here comes the po-mo....
Many of you have no doubt read about Thomas Beatie, the pregnant transman of Oregon:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23482682-401,00.html
First off, yawn. This is old news to the queer-savvy media hound; Matt Rice had a baby years ago. The difference is that Matt and then-spouse Patrick Califia opted not to have their pregnancy in the newspapers. You know, like the rest of us.
Still, there is something that sticks in my craw about Mr. Beatie. I'm a libertarian who is deeply, deeply uncomfortable with female gender roles, and anybody who knows me for about ten minutes can figure that out. Neil Gaiman did a short story about a cancer drug that turned out to have the side effect of changing a person's sex, and the story went on about how it became a recreational. I admit, if there were a drug that would allow me to pick the sex I wanted to be that weekend I'd be a complete pig for it.
Obviously, this gave me a lot to think about on my interminable bus rides home. I finally decided that this was what was bugging me. I have two rules about sex and gender from which I will not budge. Rule number one: There is no difference between men and women outside the biological. Rule number two: Biology is not destiny.
The question that troubles me is, where does biology begin?
That question is largely rhetorical. Thomas Beatie is playing dirty with both rules. He takes testosterone and has had his chest reconstructed, but never had anything done with his female reproductive organs. His reason was "because I wanted to have a child someday".
Now, if you have to bring out *one thing* that defines femininity, having babies is it. Most FTMs have their ovaries and uteroi removed, even if they opt out of phalloplasty. There's a good reason for opting out of it too; it's a crude surgery that leaves one with a phallus that simply doesn't work. Why bother? But leaving everything intact in order to have a baby later is just...well it feels to me like hedging a bet. Matt Rice had to stop the FTM process in the middle because the testosterone was affecting his health adversely and took the opportunity to have a baby. Thomas Beatie's decision feels like cheating.
The idea of changing sex doesn't bother me. However it is a commitment, barring Neil Gaiman's miracle drug. Otherwise it strikes me as being play with gender roles, which is fine, but I think the distinction must be drawn between the two.
I'll say it again. Sex is what is in your pants. Gender is the role you play. I see Thomas Beatie as being of male gender, but he's taken himself out of the running for qualifying as male sex.
Many of you have no doubt read about Thomas Beatie, the pregnant transman of Oregon:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23482682-401,00.html
First off, yawn. This is old news to the queer-savvy media hound; Matt Rice had a baby years ago. The difference is that Matt and then-spouse Patrick Califia opted not to have their pregnancy in the newspapers. You know, like the rest of us.
Still, there is something that sticks in my craw about Mr. Beatie. I'm a libertarian who is deeply, deeply uncomfortable with female gender roles, and anybody who knows me for about ten minutes can figure that out. Neil Gaiman did a short story about a cancer drug that turned out to have the side effect of changing a person's sex, and the story went on about how it became a recreational. I admit, if there were a drug that would allow me to pick the sex I wanted to be that weekend I'd be a complete pig for it.
Obviously, this gave me a lot to think about on my interminable bus rides home. I finally decided that this was what was bugging me. I have two rules about sex and gender from which I will not budge. Rule number one: There is no difference between men and women outside the biological. Rule number two: Biology is not destiny.
The question that troubles me is, where does biology begin?
That question is largely rhetorical. Thomas Beatie is playing dirty with both rules. He takes testosterone and has had his chest reconstructed, but never had anything done with his female reproductive organs. His reason was "because I wanted to have a child someday".
Now, if you have to bring out *one thing* that defines femininity, having babies is it. Most FTMs have their ovaries and uteroi removed, even if they opt out of phalloplasty. There's a good reason for opting out of it too; it's a crude surgery that leaves one with a phallus that simply doesn't work. Why bother? But leaving everything intact in order to have a baby later is just...well it feels to me like hedging a bet. Matt Rice had to stop the FTM process in the middle because the testosterone was affecting his health adversely and took the opportunity to have a baby. Thomas Beatie's decision feels like cheating.
The idea of changing sex doesn't bother me. However it is a commitment, barring Neil Gaiman's miracle drug. Otherwise it strikes me as being play with gender roles, which is fine, but I think the distinction must be drawn between the two.
I'll say it again. Sex is what is in your pants. Gender is the role you play. I see Thomas Beatie as being of male gender, but he's taken himself out of the running for qualifying as male sex.
no subject
While I understand Beatie and his wife were denied pre-natal care by nine different doctors and it sucks, and certainly their story is a rare happening, I don't think going on *Oprah* was the best choice of actions.
I dunno. I don't really want to get into my opinions because it's not all a black/white good/bad thing... it's quite complicated. Once again, quality of life... I hope all involved are happy and have the best quality of life they can since they're going through with it.
no subject
The other thing bugging me is the whole way they're acting entitled. No one has the "right" to a child. No one is "owed" one. Children are not commodities.