A pregnant man?

  • Thread starter Thread starter twosweetgirls
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m sure that the cases you bring up are extremely rare.
Not as rare as you might think. I am one, and I am sure I am not the only one that uses these boards. Different chromosomes from XX and XY are as common as 1/500 people, and there are many more than that here alone.

That might not seem that common, but take into account that Beattie, if we consider him a transsexual, is even rarer. (1 in 10,000 or so) We live in the shadows, I just happen to be a very loud one 🙂
 
How about this:
People with ambiguous genitalia or who present as one sex and then develop in puberty as the other choose their own sex if unable to afford DNA testing. Persons with ambiguous DNA go by appearance of genitalia/secondary sex characteristics. Persons with both ambiguous DNA and ambiguous genitalia have a choice but make that choice by age 26, the age of full development in most areas. After that, you are what you are and don’t change it. Any surgery you want is OK if it corrects a problem.
First-strike violence against anyone at all is a felony and results in hard time. Sexual abuse and mutilation are punished harshly. Anyone who mutilates another person in the course of a sex crime or to produce any entertainment product etc. is never released from prison. Ever again. Regardless of who the victim is. We are all equal.
Babies are not born to their fathers, but to their mothers. A person with unambiguously female DNA and unambiguously female parts is female and is not a husband or father. She is allowed to act and dress masculine and not required to date or marry.
People with same-sex attraction are not condemned for their feelings or assaulted legally for gathering, but also do not marry members of their own sex. Who is allowed on company insurance is between employees and companies, and is not a matter for the law.
Does that sound reasonable?
Pathia, I feel sick that there is still widespread violence against intersex people in this day and age. If I ever learn that anyone I know has taken part in such a thing I will make a very big scene about it. I’m going to pray for an end to that tonight.
 
Not as rare as you might think. I am one, and I am sure I am not the only one that uses these boards. Different chromosomes from XX and XY are as common as 1/500 people, and there are many more than that here alone.

That might not seem that common, but take into account that Beattie, if we consider him a transsexual, is even rarer. (1 in 10,000 or so) We live in the shadows, I just happen to be a very loud one 🙂
Can you give a citation on that? 1/500 seems like an amazingly large number of people - 600,000 people in the US alone? 12,000,000 people worldwide? That seems pretty unbelievable.
 
Can you give a citation on that? 1/500 seems like an amazingly large number of people - 600,000 people in the US alone? 12,000,000 people worldwide? That seems pretty unbelievable.
isna.org/faq/frequency

It is amazingly high. It depends on how you define intersex, which is not agreed upon. With the 1/500ish number that includes many who are fertile, and never know unless they have a genetic test done.

I just thought I was ‘just a transsexual’ until I was describing my bizarre (Though I didn’t know it was bizarre at the time) puberty to my doctor. I just sort of thought that was part of being a transsexual, to have an odd puberty etc.
 
Not as rare as you might think. I am one, and I am sure I am not the only one that uses these boards. Different chromosomes from XX and XY are as common as 1/500 people, and there are many more than that here alone.

That might not seem that common, but take into account that Beattie, if we consider him a transsexual, is even rarer. (1 in 10,000 or so) We live in the shadows, I just happen to be a very loud one 🙂
Beattie is not a HIM, but a HER…
 
Beattie is not a HIM, but a HER…
I call people by what the names and pronouns that they wish to be called, it’s simply just rude to do otherwise and will cause needless conflict. Transsexuals have it bad enough as is to not have simple things get in the way.
 
isna.org/faq/frequency

It is amazingly high. It depends on how you define intersex, which is not agreed upon. With the 1/500ish number that includes many who are fertile, and never know unless they have a genetic test done.

I just thought I was ‘just a transsexual’ until I was describing my bizarre (Though I didn’t know it was bizarre at the time) puberty to my doctor. I just sort of thought that was part of being a transsexual, to have an odd puberty etc.
Well, it is still a much higher number than I would have thought, but your citation for neither XX or XY says 1:1666, not 1:500. Thanks for the info though…I will read more on the link you provided, when I have a chance.
 
Well, it is still a much higher number than I would have thought, but your citation for neither XX or XY says 1:1666, not 1:500. Thanks for the info though…I will read more on the link you provided, when I have a chance.
The 1/500 might be from somewhere else, I admit it does sound too high 🙂

Edit: Oh, I know what 1/500 is now. It is the incidence of klinefelter’s in males (all klinefelter’s cases are usually raised male). So the quote on the website is for 1/1000, when it is really 1/500 male births, because of the 50/50 between male and female. Genetic females don’t get klinefelter’s, they have turner’s instead or triplo-x.
 
I call people by what the names and pronouns that they wish to be called, it’s simply just rude to do otherwise and will cause needless conflict. Transsexuals have it bad enough as is to not have simple things get in the way.
Her dad still calls her by her original name.
 
The 1/500 might be from somewhere else, I admit it does sound too high 🙂

Edit: Oh, I know what 1/500 is now. It is the incidence of klinefelter’s in males (all klinefelter’s cases are usually raised male). So the quote on the website is for 1/1000, when it is really 1/500 male births, because of the 50/50 between male and female. Genetic females don’t get klinefelter’s, they have turner’s instead or triplo-x.
That is interesting. Any correlation between males with klinefelter’s and homosexuality? If a guy is “more in touch with his feminine side,” is he possibly XXY and actually has a feminine side? There has to be some studies on that.
 
That is interesting. Any correlation between males with klinefelter’s and homosexuality. If a guy is “more in touch with his feminine side,” is he possibly XXY and actually has a feminine side? There has to be some studies on that.
Doctors will tell the parents of an XXY child that he will not be gay, however there aren’t any scientific surveys of XXY’s that I know. I’ve seen some questionnaires in online in support groups around are something around 40% of them identifying as not-straight (I think the breakdown was 20% bisexual 10% gay 10% transsexual). They are still rather likely to be attracted to women, bisexuality is VERY common. I’m not sure why it’s not been studied closely, there’s quite a large sample given how common it is. Trying to find that survey again…again though, it wasn’t scientific.
 
Doctors will tell the parents of an XXY child that he will not be gay, however there aren’t any scientific surveys of XXY’s that I know. I’ve seen some questionnaires in online in support groups around are something around 40% of them identifying as not-straight (I think the breakdown was 20% bisexual 10% gay 10% transsexual). They are still rather likely to be attracted to women, bisexuality is VERY common. I’m not sure why it’s not been studied closely, there’s quite a large sample given how common it is. Trying to find that survey again…again though, it wasn’t scientific.
That’s why I asked about guys “more in touch with their feminine side.” They aren’t necessarily “gay.” I’ve known some fairly “effiminate” guys who are heterosexual, happily married, dads. That’s why I don’t put any stock into the “gay-dar” silliness some people talk about.

As you and I have agreed on in the past, homosexuality most probably comes from a variety of (name removed by moderator)ut - genetic, hormonal/chemical, environmental (i.e. “born that way” and “choice”). This is the first I have heard about the numbers of XXY individuals. I guess I would be interested in a study of self-described homosexuals and bisexuals to see what percentage are XXY (iow…the reverse numbers of those you gave).
 
Mike and Sailor Kenshin, - what about those born with ambiguous genitalia and were declared as male at birth but later found to have inner female organs then they had surgery to be female? Or how about the woman who gave birth and later she was found to have XY chromosomes which is male? And how about those born with both XY and XX - chimera?
No guys, sex is not an absolute.🤷

Lynn-D
No one is talking about them, but I think you know that.
 
obviously she is still a female - that is my point
I think you totally missed mine…

My parents knew me by my boy’s name for 22years. Do you know how hard it is to change 22years of automatic behavior? I suspect it is much the same in this case.

I have already detailed out why some FTMs don’t have this surgery way back a few pages ago. Removing the reproductive organs does NOT remove the risk of cancer in any way shape or form. Just because the organs are no longer there does not mean a remnant isn’t there to become cancerous.
 
I think you totally missed mine…

My parents knew me by my boy’s name for 22years. Do you know how hard it is to change 22years of automatic behavior? I suspect it is much the same in this case.

I have already detailed out why some FTMs don’t have this surgery way back a few pages ago. Removing the reproductive organs does NOT remove the risk of cancer in any way shape or form. Just because the organs are no longer there does not mean a remnant isn’t there to become cancerous.
I wan’t talking about cancer or anything else but that this pregnant woman is still only a woman, nothing more unusual than that.
 
I have already detailed out why some FTMs don’t have this surgery way back a few pages ago. Removing the reproductive organs does NOT remove the risk of cancer in any way shape or form. Just because the organs are no longer there does not mean a remnant isn’t there to become cancerous.
If a person is truly an intersex or transsexual I would suppose that if they are comfortable enough to intentionally get pregnant and give birth then I must be suspicious of that person ever being anything but what Beattie actually referred to HERSELF as being…a lesbian transgender. One cannot tell me they have the mental brain of one sex in conflict with their genitalia then mentally and physically proclaim to the world that they are going to live through what is a totally female act all the while yell from under the stage-lights that they are really male. Not in my book. That is delusion and fits right in with GID, a mental dysphoria. :rolleyes:

I had an ovary removed when an infant and now uterine tissue will need to be removed because of bleeding problems but the fact is that every doctor I have seen lessens the chance of my getting cancer because of the removal, - not increasing the odds. No, I think actually the chances of this fetus being negatively affected because of the MOTHER taking male hormones is greater than any cancer a she might get as a result of removal of any tissue or organ. 😦

I learned sometime ago while taking college upgrades as a social worker that the numbers of actual transsexuals was in the 1/25000 range. The mix-up it seems is the error of reporting transgender elements in the analysis. If you claim 1/1500 that might well include many who identify as gender variant who often fantasize about being the opposite sex but actually are crossdressers, fetishists and/or simply dysphoric. That complicates the matter of dealing and treating those who are really transsexuals and obviously skews the numbers. 🤷

I think what needs to be addressed is that many churches seem to include intersex and transsexuals in with all of the elements under the GLBT acronym as if they too are either driven by sexual orientation (gay/lesbian/bisexual, GLB) or crossdressing and other elements (T) which GLBT denotes. Fact is that those suffering from the IS or TS condition are wrongly thought to be having corrective surgery for sexual reasons. That is simply not true. The surgery usually is so that the person might finally feel as one with him or herself…to feel whole. :o

Yes, I do think the bible is clear on the issue of homosexuality and crossdressing. It calls them an abomination if practiced. But what that has to do with a person born IS or TS confuses me to this day. Seems someone turned the wrong page on the scientific literature or maybe just that some do not know the difference between what transgender was coined to describe and what is actually an intersex and/or a transsexual condition. :confused:

Lynn-D
 
If a person is truly an intersex or transsexual I would suppose that if they are comfortable enough to intentionally get pregnant and give birth then I must be suspicious of that person ever being anything but what Beattie actually referred to HERSELF as being…a lesbian transgender. One cannot tell me they have the mental brain of one sex in conflict with their genitalia then mentally and physically proclaim to the world that they are going to live through what is a totally female act all the while yell from under the stage-lights that they are really male. Not in my book. That is delusion and fits right in with GID, a mental dysphoria. :rolleyes:

I had an ovary removed when an infant and now uterine tissue will need to be removed because of bleeding problems but the fact is that every doctor I have seen lessens the chance of my getting cancer because of the removal, - not increasing the odds. No, I think actually the chances of this fetus being negatively affected because of the MOTHER taking male hormones is greater than any cancer a she might get as a result of removal of any tissue or organ. 😦

I learned sometime ago while taking college upgrades as a social worker that the numbers of actual transsexuals was in the 1/25000 range. The mix-up it seems is the error of reporting transgender elements in the analysis. If you claim 1/1500 that might well include many who identify as gender variant who often fantasize about being the opposite sex but actually are crossdressers, fetishists and/or simply dysphoric. That complicates the matter of dealing and treating those who are really transsexuals and obviously skews the numbers. 🤷

I think what needs to be addressed is that many churches seem to include intersex and transsexuals in with all of the elements under the GLBT acronym as if they too are either driven by sexual orientation (gay/lesbian/bisexual, GLB) or crossdressing and other elements (T) which GLBT denotes. Fact is that those suffering from the IS or TS condition are wrongly thought to be having corrective surgery for sexual reasons. That is simply not true. The surgery usually is so that the person might finally feel as one with him or herself…to feel whole. :o

Lynn-D
My mother died in February from Ovarian cancer. She had had a complete hysterectomy two decades ago.

Don’t try to tell me it stops cancer to remove them. She DIED from it, and the fact they were gone actually made the diagnosis VERY difficult.

Ovary removal does NOT stop the possibility of cancer, PERIOD.

As for testosterone. A biological female cannot get pregnant with much testosterone in the body’s system. Beattie STOPPED hormone therapy over a year ago to make sure the baby was not artificially made intersex (which is what would have happened).

“Ovarian Cancer - It whispers, so listen”
 
Ovary removal does NOT stop the possibility of cancer, PERIOD.

As for testosterone. A biological female cannot get pregnant with much testosterone in the body’s system. Beattie STOPPED hormone therapy over a year ago to make sure the baby was not artificially made intersex (which is what would have happened).
I never said that it would stop the possibility. I said, “but the fact is that every doctor I have seen lessens the chance of my getting cancer because of the removal, - not increasing the odds.”

You are absolutely right, “A biological female cannot get pregnant with much testosterone in the body’s system.”

The fact of the matter is that Beattie is not a male but simply a female who got pregnant purposefully. Her sexual orientation does not alter that fact and it does not lend itself to her being anything else perhaps other than a person who identified as a lesbian/transgender who now uses the pronoun ‘he’.

The chance she is taking is not unlike the intake of male hormones and steroids taken by the East German Olympians which was not as much a threat to themselves as to their not yet born children. I am not aware of any of them giving birth to an intersex child - not that they didn’t - but have read that some had children who were born with other malformations and/or mental anomalies.

Let us not be taken in by someone just by their words but examine their deeds. Beattie was a girl who grew into womanhood. She found her sexual orientation to be lesbian. In time she seems to have also decided she was transgender and it was then she had her breasts removed and took male hormones. From all I have read her purpose was to take hormones but not to ever have a hysterectomy even before she elected to marry another female and then to have a baby. It was then she opted to stop the hormones. It seems her intention was to retain her female organs and simply present as a male which in her home state of Hawaii was permitted legally thereby allowing her to identify as a male and marry a female. That would seem to reflect the behavior of a transgender I agree but not a transsexual.

I feel strongly that cases like Beattie do stunt the arguments offered in defense of the IS and TS as medical conditions within the church. Her case offers nothing but a magnate for ridicule that becomes equally borne by others who really are IS and/or TS. It definitely does not give them reason to hope for acceptance or understanding once again by the church as was previously the case under Pope Paul VI. The Church might someday accept IS and TS as the medical conditions they are but never the non-biological social construct … transgender.

Lynn-D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top