Magazines | News | Transgender

This Man is 22 Weeks Pregnant

Thomasbeatie

Thomas Beatie is transgender, legally male, and has a wife, Nancy. He's also 22 weeks pregnant. The couple's first attempt at pregnancy was fraught with life threatening medical isses. However, their second attempt has resulted in, by all accounts, a healthy pregnancy. Eight years after having his last menstrual cycle he stopped taking bimonthly testosterone injections and his body regulated itself so that he was able to conceive.

Beatie writes, in The Advocate: "Our situation sparks legal, political, and social unknowns. We have only begun experiencing opposition from people who are upset by our situation. Doctors have discriminated against us, turning us away due to their religious beliefs. Health care professionals have refused to call me by a male pronoun or recognize Nancy as my wife. Receptionists have laughed at us. Friends and family have been unsupportive; most of Nancy’s family doesn’t even know I’m transgender."

Beatie is due on July 3.

Labor of Love [the advocate]

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. As long as the child is physically and psychologically healthy, I say "Hats off!"

    Posted by: David | Mar 26, 2008 11:03:16 AM


  2. Trippy, indeed. But good for them for defining their own happiness.

    Here's to a healthy baby.

    Posted by: Jeff | Mar 26, 2008 11:13:05 AM


  3. While some of the comments are open minded and supportive, it doesn’t surprise me that the negative ones are here as well.

    It’s no surprise that their “situation sparks legal, political, and social unknowns.” Personally, I think it is very interesting and I am always up for challenging social norms and expectations. Beattie goes on to say “We have only just begun to experience discrimination …” Frankly, what did he expect; gay men and women, transgender, transsexual, two-spirited, queer, bisexual etc … still deal with stigma and discrimination from heterosexuals and among themselves … and that’s without the circumstances of an unusual pregnancy.

    It will be interesting to see if the pregnancy goes full term and what complications; social, physical or otherwise they may experience. I wish him luck, unfortunately I think it will be hard luck.

    Posted by: Joseph | Mar 26, 2008 11:25:35 AM


  4. Derrick, Alex, RB, I agree with you all. It's disturbing how bigoted some of the comments are.

    Mike, men don't get pregnant? Really? Some folks would say men don't get married to other men either.

    Queendru... "selfish mockery"?, "ethics review"? From which hypocritical right-wing fundamentalist tree did you fall?

    I wish the couple all the best.

    Posted by: RJ | Mar 26, 2008 11:27:44 AM


  5. wow, as a straight, married-to-a-woman father, I am really surprised at how vehemently the LGB's here [or the G's, I'm guessing] are booting the T's to the curb.

    FTM pregnancies are not new, just a pregnant FTM dude being out about it and posing like Demi Moore. Also not new: insensitive bigotry towards pregnant FTM's from within the TS and gay/lesbian communities.

    In the few minutes since reading about this story, I searched online for research and support information about FTM pregnancy; there's plenty there, dating back to the 70's. A lot of it includes firsthand accounts of the discrimination and ostracization FTM's experienced. I figured that was some time in ancient gay history; but it sounds like it's alive and kicking.

    Posted by: greg from daddytypes | Mar 26, 2008 11:39:54 AM


  6. Amen Greg! We are all different from the general society but that is the one thing that we have in common! WE ARE DIFFERENT, from them and each other. I am amazed at how little concern we have for anyone that does not fit our norm.

    I tried to conform, spent 11 years married, had two kids and yet never fit in! If this is the only way that they can have children then just pray that they are healthy, both the parent and child!

    I have dealt with more homophobia both from myself and others since I came out than I ever did as a "straight" man! Which in and of itself is a joke as I was NEVER straight! I blindly walked into what I thought was a liberal accepting society only to slapped in the face with crap like some of the posts here. No offense, but we are hardly open minded and lack the class it takes to be so. My grandmother always said two things, you cannot buy class and it isn't for sale and that there is not a lot of common in common sense! I would think that both apply to this thread.

    My best to the family to be!

    Posted by: RB | Mar 26, 2008 12:07:40 PM


  7. God grant them joy.

    Posted by: FASTLAD | Mar 26, 2008 12:10:12 PM


  8. I think it's amazing and wonderful. As the original goals for the GLBT movement were based upon sexual freedom has morphed into working towards civil unions, gay marriage and having babies, this seems to be the next logical step in the process. Yeah, some people may not think it's so great because it's "different" or "weird", but nothing changes until people keep pushing the boundaries of sexuality and gender rather than playing it safe..

    Posted by: Timothy B | Mar 26, 2008 12:15:27 PM


  9. I think the worry over the health of the baby is likely overblown (besides, high testerone levels in pregnancy may cause male homosexuality so that isn't too "dangerous" anyway).
    My problem is the disconnect between the mother's wish to be considered a man and her wish to "leave her reproductive options" open. Basically, she has her breasts removed had grew facial hair - but kept her vagina ovaries and uterus.
    In the article, there was this strangely locuted quote about the desire for a biological child not being a female but a human desire. I find it really strange that a person who was born a woman and wants to carry a child in pregnancy seems to have such a problem with being a woman.
    What is so valuable about a flat chest and facial hair? And how can you simultaneously claim that bodies we are born with do not determine our "true" gender and then go on to reinforce those same gender stereotypes by surgically altering your body to conform to that same bogus stereotype?
    I am happy we live in a country where people are free to pursue their own forms of happiness. But we also need to progress to freeing people from their own internal prejudices. Why not choose to be, simply, an unconventional, empowered woman (or a sensual, feminine man) instead of pursuing a complicated regime of surgical & hormonal alteration to achieve superficial physical traits whose significance was discounted in the first place?

    Posted by: kipp | Mar 26, 2008 12:47:21 PM


  10. CNN had a link to a local ABC station saying this may be a hoax.

    http://www.kitv.com/news/15707641/detail.html

    Posted by: queendru | Mar 26, 2008 12:55:34 PM


  11. I wish this couple a healthy baby!

    But I am surprised that people are still *surprised* at the hypocrisy and bigotry that has been a main staple of this blog's threads for some time.

    Posted by: soulbrotha | Mar 26, 2008 1:01:19 PM


  12. KIPP, seriously????

    "I find it really strange that a person who was born a woman and wants to carry a child in pregnancy seems to have such a problem with being a woman."
    I hate to break it for you, but women are not limited to being e reproductive system. Do you find it hard for someone born sans vagina to want to be with a men strange? I mean, come on, he's been born with a dick, and wants to use it - why can't he just go and have a gal of his own?

    "Why not choose to be, simply, an unconventional, empowered woman (or a sensual, feminine man) instead of pursuing a complicated regime of surgical & hormonal alteration to achieve superficial physical traits whose significance was discounted in the first place?"???
    I don't believe you, honestly. Than why not choosing to be a quiet and closeted homosexual, instead of going through the ordeal of coming out to being with? Why having crappy substitutes of rights which significance is "still discounted in the first place"? I sure as hell hope you're following your advices.

    It's all called CHOICE to be who you are, especially when ignorants and bigots judge you at the same corner where they whine for being judged themselves.

    Posted by: Alex | Mar 26, 2008 1:16:21 PM


  13. RJ says, "Queendru... "selfish mockery"?, "ethics review"? From which hypocritical right-wing fundamentalist tree did you fall?"

    Name calling from self-appointed tolerance police! 'Love it.

    If you read the Advocate piece, you see there was an ethic review at one hospital over this case. There was also a psych review. This makes perfect sense. You have an individual who when through the trying process of becoming female to male and now wants to undertake a uniquely female activity of carrying a child to term.

    If you can't see even a few of the ethical questions that need asking, I don't want to live the sort of unquestioning, no holds barred universe you are championing.

    By Thomas obviously not fully embracing the physical transformation away from female, you have a mockery of the journey of transgenders to make that leap to match body with self-image. You have, instead, a true life example of the stereotyped F2M as just a mutilated woman. It's offensive. Now there's some suggestion this story is a hoax.

    Posted by: queendru | Mar 26, 2008 1:17:56 PM


  14. Odd story and kinda creepy, but, if "he" still retains female parts that are capable of carrying a child to term, "he" is still a "she."

    Posted by: Jeff | Mar 26, 2008 1:19:26 PM


  15. Reading an article like this gives me hope for the future and the further diminishing of gender roles and prejudices.

    Reading the comments associated with an article like this makes me think gay people are doomed to self-destruction much like the bozos running the Democratic party.

    Posted by: Rey | Mar 26, 2008 1:43:26 PM


  16. Alex,

    "I hate to break it for you, but women are not limited to being e reproductive system."

    Women are indeed free to be whatever they want - and I am happy about that. I'm not sure how you interpreted my post as a swipe at female dignity. My question remains: How can a person born a woman, who has kept her vagina, and is now carrying a baby have such an issue with being perceived as a woman? Thomas chose to have his breasts removed and live as man - yet also chose to keep his female genitalia and to carry a pregnancy. My question does not demean women, it asks why Thomas wants to be considered as *only* a man?

    If you had attended to the parts of my comment beyond those that offended you, you may noted that I am happy women and men have the freedom in our society to pursue whatever makes them happy - and that "really" does include whatever degree of gender re-assignment they choose. I can still support that freedom while asking why people choose to exercise it. And I was alluding to another point, beyond the scope of this thread, about the ways in which transgender people like Thomas seem to simultaneously want to defy gender/body stereotypes (vagina and breasts = female soul) yet also go to great lengths to adhere to gender stereotypes (facial hair and flat chest = male soul).

    It isn't an attack on Thomas' (or your) freedom to raise that point.

    Posted by: kipp | Mar 26, 2008 2:37:43 PM


  17. Assuming this story isn't some elaborate hoax, I find it shocking that so many people have sprung to the defense of this undertaking on "live and let live" grounds.

    I'm all for that as far as it goes. But this is not just about the adult couple. There is another, prenatal human life involved here as well. And the only discussion of the health issues facing the fetus is Kipp's "I think the worry over the health of the baby is likely overblown". That may well be, and I'm certainly not doctor. But I'd want to see a hell of a lot stronger assurance than "likely overblown" before concluding that these people aren't playing craps with another human being's life in order to indulge their fantasy of parenthood and what some here are applauding as sensible gender-boundary pushing.

    To my mind, the first and absolutely unassailable principle in ethics is the Kantian admonition to treat no other person as simply a means to an end. It's not clear to me that this fetus is anything other than a means in these circumstances.

    That said, satisfy the health concerns, and then I'm with the live and let live crowd. It's definitely on the outermost edge of social evolution, and I'm not sure that I need gender roles to be so malleable that "men" are bearing children. But I'm not going to stand in the way.

    Posted by: Hermes in DC | Mar 26, 2008 2:45:53 PM


  18. I'm wondering about the mechanics of this situation. What female anatomy remains? How will the baby be delivered. Women without ovaries have a small chance of delivering to term, for example. (This is different from women without eggs.)

    What I guess we are dealing with is not FTM transgenderism but FT-Hermaphrodite transgenderism, which again hints at the underlying near masochism of transgenders wishing to mutilate themselves. It must be obvious that no amount of surgery or hormone treatments will change your sex. Some desires simply cannot be fulfilled at present. While we should be emotionally supportive if a person has body issues, there are practical limits to what can we can hope to achieve. If you've looked into transgender surgery, etc., please be aware of attempts by some to change their bodies in all sorts of ways, such as trying to become another species! Yes, plastic surgeons will do anything for a buck, but becoming a horse or a dog ain't easy. What is comes down to is whether the fulfillment of the desire does more harm than good in the end.

    Posted by: anon | Mar 26, 2008 3:22:31 PM


  19. I wish Thomas and Nancy all the best and hope for a safe delivery.

    However, I admit that I'm a tad jealous that their relationship has legal recognition yet the bulk of gay, lesbian, and other non-gender-conforming relationships don't. I've heard of a few transgendered persons whose marriages have been given legal recognition, yet gay and lesbian couples by and large can't get married. It would appear that the only way a gay man can legally marry another man is if the latter is a pre-op FTM, and the only way a lesbian can legally marry a woman is if the latter is a pre-op MTF (see the Jessica Wicks case), or something like that. Maybe I'm confusing things here.

    Notice that I haven't said anything negative about Thomas' pregnancy. While it was a surprise to read that article, I still hope for the best.

    Posted by: Alex Sarmiento | Mar 26, 2008 3:55:01 PM


  20. You are doing something truly amazing.
    I hope it all goes as smoothly as possible.
    Best Wishes
    Jaz

    Posted by: Jaz | Mar 26, 2008 6:15:01 PM


  21. Alex: It all depends on state laws. Most allow post-op marriage in the new gender (a straight marriage, of course), but it depends on how you define gender. Some states, like I think Texas, define sex based on chromosomes, so if you're XY you'll forever be able to marry XX people, no matter what genitals or body you have.

    Posted by: Lia | Mar 26, 2008 7:44:49 PM


  22. Congrats to them.
    :)

    Posted by: Kyle | Mar 26, 2008 11:36:54 PM


  23. Geez, I would have expected better from the LGBT community. Why does ANYONE care how someone expresses their gender?! What possible difference does it make whether they want to be called a man or a woman or a Martian? What's the problem with just treating people respectfully, calling them what they want to be called, and leaving them the hell alone? If someone wants to be called Fred, Portia, or Lawn Mower, fine by me. Just as it certainly isn't my place to tell them what their name is, it sure as hell isn't my place to tell them what they should do to present their gender "correctly". Good grief, from a bunch of people who are being oppressed and abused because of your sexual presentation, there are sure some real bigots!

    I'm straight, and even I can figure that much out. Humans are so frigging obsessed with the gender binary, it's stupid. What a waste of energy.

    Posted by: jeez | Mar 27, 2008 12:17:27 AM


  24. This is not the first time this has happened, as I mentioned in an earlier post. The problem here is the publicity mongering for $. Thomas Beatie has whored himself out to the media like a sideshow freak. He's making a few bucks while the right wing bigots are having a field day with this story & gaining new converts.

    Posted by: Keith | Mar 27, 2008 12:37:36 AM


  25. I agree with Jeez. I think we need to question WHY any change or wierdness in someones gender presentation matters so much to us.

    If a person who was born a female, and had not ever had any sex reassignment surgery but simply wished to be refered to with male pronouns had become pregnant what would you all think of that? What about if someone simply didn't like the male/female system we have and asked to be referred to with gender neutral pronouns?

    Why does a person's gender matter so much to us at all? Why does a person's sex matter so much? Why are we even asking stupid questions that basically add up to "what does he look like naked? or What kind of equipment does he have between his legs?"

    Is it simply because it always has mattered to our society, so it should just continue to be important? This internalized way of thinking that we are projecting on others is the reason that we (deep down on the inside) still think things like "girls can't do that" or "how odd that he'd want to have his penis surgically changed to a vagina" or "why is she such a tomboy, does that mean she's a dike?"

    if you think that i'm being a bit harsh, stop and think about it. Every judgmental thing you think about others is a judgement you put on yourself first.

    Who cares what sex or gender he is. That other people are given the creeps by it says more about them than about him.

    Posted by: webejamming | Mar 27, 2008 2:07:47 AM


  26. « | 1 2 3 4 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «On the Stage: Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Adding Machine, Parlour Song« «