06/09/2008
Pregnant Trans Man Thomas Beatie to Give Birth Shortly
Pregnant transgender man Thomas Beatie is less than a month away from giving birth and a slew of new images of Beatie at home and about have been published by the UK tabloid News of the World.
Said Beatie: "I'm 36 weeks now and almost due but I feel fantastic. Every day Nancy and I think about how we just cannot wait to hold our daughter for the first time, to finally get to touch her and see her face. We have her nursery ready and her diapers are lined up in her bedroom. Everything is ready to go. We have even picked a name which we both love—although we're waiting until she is born before we tell anyone. All the people who really know us and love us, our friends and family, have been incredibly supportive. So much so we might even have more children. We will just see what the experience is like with our daughter's arrival first and then give it some thought."
Good Morning America did a segment on the photos of Beatie, but felt the above image of Beatie shaving was a bit much for their viewers.
Watch it, AFTER THE JUMP...
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 11:30 AM EST by Andy in News, Thomas Beatie, Transgender | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
it don't mean a thing if she ain't got that schwing.... do wa do wa do wa do wa do wa....
Posted by: the queen | Jun 9, 2008 11:59:56 AM
I don't mean to sound unsupportive, but this picture makes me think that, what with all the hormones he has taken to become a transgender man, it can't be good for the bun to be baking in that oven.
Posted by: Michael | Jun 9, 2008 12:06:48 PM
Supposedly he/she stopped hormone treatments once they discovered the pregnancy. If that is so, then why the need for a morning shave? I'm pretty "live and let live" but it seems obvious that the couple is loving all the media attention. Maybe the child is just the after thought?
Posted by: Don | Jun 9, 2008 12:10:50 PM
She is gross. And I do mean she.
Posted by: Blair | Jun 9, 2008 12:23:54 PM
If I recall correctly, Thomas stopped taking hormones a few years ago when they first tried getting pregnant.
But I'm confused about the shaving too... I don't know enough about hormones but I would have thought facial hair would stop growing if he stopped taking them. Anyone know?
Posted by: crispy | Jun 9, 2008 12:31:14 PM
A pregnant woman. This is big news.
Posted by: paul | Jun 9, 2008 12:39:56 PM
If there were any doubt that Beatie is an just another cheap media attention whore, this latest "release" of photos answers that question.
As long as the child is healthy, the pregnancy itself is the business of "him" and his partner, but what purpose do yet more photos serve BEYOND ego-stroking attention? Will we be treated to bloody delivery room close-ups, too, [with or without an artificial constructed penis above the baby's protruding head] and year after year of "Child of Trans Attention Whore Has Another Birthday" candids?
NOT helping not scaring voter horses!
Posted by: Leland Frances | Jun 9, 2008 12:40:47 PM
Yeah, I'd hate to be that kid, created purely to make a buck. This is about a very mercenary human being who is whoring out his/her life for cash. The shaving photo is perfect evidence. Talk about sleazy.
Posted by: Dan | Jun 9, 2008 12:59:47 PM
Finally, people are seeing through this charade. I think Leland put it best in his comment about "...year after year of 'Child of Trans Attention Whore Has Another Birthday' candids" coming our way. I still do not understand why the trans man chose to attempt to conceive unless there is a more long-standing history of this guy seeking affirmation through the attention of strangers.
At first look, this WAS fascinating. Now it's looking more and more like a good old attention grab. I am trying to be open-minded about the couple's sincerity in this situation but their continued willingness to encourage media coverage is starting to tarnish their true motivations, I think. I hope for the kid's sake that they love him as much as they possibly can - with or without ongoing media attention.
Posted by: seeldee | Jun 9, 2008 1:06:29 PM
No doubt he/she was paid for the photos as a media stunt (though the pregnancy is probably real). He/she apparently has no interest in everyone leaving him/her alone or keeping this a private matter. This should give people pause.
Anyway, the growth of facial hair is due to the masculization of follicles from testosterone. This is irreversible, as would be gynecomastia from too much estrogen taken by a man. So, even if he/she stops taking it, the hair will keep growing. The voice drop from thickening of vocal chords is also irreversible. However, the presence of ovaries and the taking of testosterone together must be a wicked brew of hormones.
Posted by: anon | Jun 9, 2008 1:07:00 PM
i'm always amazed by the trans hateration among gay men.
especially calling Beatie a she because he doesn't have a penis.
i know this isn't universally accepted, but i believe in using the pronound preferred by the transgender in question. ftm's can't really get functioning penises because the science isn't there. it's not their fault they can't get the genitalia they want. they should still be able to adopt a male pronoun and male gender (which is different than biological sex) if they so choose.
/2 cents
Posted by: Alex | Jun 9, 2008 1:23:16 PM
Yeah, these are the two people that were so adamant about wanting their privacy to protect their child... I wonder if we'll find out what this is REALLY all about before or after the birth?
Posted by: David B. | Jun 9, 2008 1:26:49 PM
I'm all for them, but I'm sick of seeing all these stupid staged photographs.
Posted by: Gregoire | Jun 9, 2008 1:27:40 PM
Wow there are some really fucked up transphobic comments here. shouldn't we leave that bullshit for the Phelps' of the world?
Posted by: stephen c. | Jun 9, 2008 1:30:15 PM
If it's got a uterus and milk glands capable of producing milk no matter what happens to the exterior(surgery or not) or amount of testosterone taken it's a FEMALE!!!! Stop calling this person a "man"! In those pics we basically are seeing a topless woman shaving and taking a bath. Can't people realize this is not a NORMAL functioning human being? This is a sick, disgusting and twisted individual....
Posted by: Jess | Jun 9, 2008 1:30:37 PM
This freak show is exactly why we will be hailing President McCain this time next year.
Posted by: brad | Jun 9, 2008 1:33:04 PM
Thank you Fred Phelps.. ahem.. Jess.
Posted by: Stephen C | Jun 9, 2008 1:33:42 PM
It is tough, Alex and Stephen to call Beatie a "he" (the preferred term) when pregnant.
I've said it before, that as a gay man i do not feel that I identify with trans people, or that I have to.
I feel for those who feel they are in the wrong body, but this sort of half-and-half isn't right. A topless pregnant person shaving in a photograph is freaky. Our cause (trans included) does not benefit from the attention given to this attention-whore.
Posted by: Dan B | Jun 9, 2008 1:44:30 PM
These photos are not good for the GLBT movement, people do not want to see this stuff. This will set us back 20 years!
Posted by: Ty | Jun 9, 2008 1:47:21 PM
I am no phobic. Don't you dare compare me to Phelps. I've never heard of him and, after looking him up, in no way agree with what he says, examples: "Thank God for 9/11", "God hates fags," "AIDS cures fags," and "Fags die, God laughs (or mocks)." God does not hate anyone. I am stating my opinion which I am sure other people in the world agree with. If you don't like it, so what.
Posted by: Jess | Jun 9, 2008 1:48:31 PM
Calling a transperson a sick and twisted individual is a bit much, no?
And as far as transgenders setting back gay rights, remember it was the trannies that started the Stonewall Riots.
Posted by: Alex | Jun 9, 2008 2:00:17 PM
I don't think it is...there are different levels of it. This person isn't a serial rapist or killer so by "sick and twisted" I mean at the very least. I'm done trying to defend my words. Just move on already. All I hope is that the baby ends up being healthy and brought up without being showcased to the media and not a money maker for this couple.
Posted by: Jess | Jun 9, 2008 2:08:55 PM
If these comments reflect the general audience of this blog, I am grateful to NOT be a regular reader of it.
The sensationalism of this story may be getting out of hand, but in no way does that make it appropriate to make juvenile comments about Beatie's gender or sex.
Posted by: Kelly | Jun 9, 2008 2:41:21 PM
wow, some of the people here are seriously pathetic. A person having a child is not detrimental to the gay rights movement, a person shedding light on the complexities of a transperson's journey through life ( which includes reproduction)is not detrimental. I personally think that while the pictures are a bit much for me ( although I think the one of him in the tub is pretty artsy ) I believe that it just adds one more example of the diversities of the American family. The gay community itself is it's own worst enemy, pathetic bare backing methheads are the communities worst enemy. Bitchy queens who refuse to acknowledge anyone with respect are detrimental are harmful to the community. Gays who practice racial intolerance ( and you know who you are ) are harmful to the community. A person having a kid is not detrimental to the gay community. Please people at the end of the day this is simply a story about people trying to start a family, get over yourselves.
Posted by: Pekemo | Jun 9, 2008 2:43:11 PM
Fertility treatments ain't cheap - nor is the accompanying medical care. Beatie's first attempt at pregnancy led to tubal triplets and nearly killed him. Although this second pregnancy seems to be okay - Beatie's suggestion that they just might try again seems disingenuous (just like their repeated claim that there's nothing strange about their family in the context of self-sought coverage with a well-stoked freakshow subtext). The Beatie's were likely paid a small but helpful amount for their photos - and someone is going to have to support the child once it's born. Attention-whore parents are never a good thing. That daughter has one frustrating life ahead of her...
Posted by: kipp | Jun 9, 2008 2:47:26 PM
Pekemo, thank you.
Posted by: Alex | Jun 9, 2008 3:05:14 PM
The right to self-determination and fluidity of gender is all well and good. However.
We have NO IDEA what the mother's course of hormone treatments is doing to the child's fetal development. I'm amazed any doctor would cooperate in so reckless a procedure.
Stopping the hormones when the pregnancy was discovered may or may not make a difference. We have no idea. It's an extraordinarily callous experiment with someone else's life.
Posted by: thin mint | Jun 9, 2008 3:38:51 PM
Alex: I think it was transvestites, aka "drag queens" that were involved in the Stonewall Riots, NOT transexuals. There is a big difference between the two I think. I don't think transvestites want to be transexuals. Although there might be some, but not because they feel psychologically trapped in the wrong body. I've known many drag queens, but none of them would want to be surgically altered to be real women. I can accept transexuals, but I do not identify with them. Nor do I think they are part of the struggle for gay rights, but have been included, why I don't fully understand. I am a gay man. I like men. I know lesbians who are lesbians because they like women. I'm a cocksucker and lesbians are muff divers. We love the genitalia of our same sex. As a gay man I find the vagina, well, disgusting. I don't want to have sex with one, nor do I want one for my own. Transexuals are supposedly folks "trapped" in the body of the wrong or opposite sex. Once their bodies are transformed surgically to correspond with their psychological sex perception, they are essentially "heterosexual" males or females surgically altered to reflect their perceived or proper gender. I am a man. I enjoy being a man. I have no desire to be a woman. I like other men, physically, sexually and emotionally. I would not be happy if a surgeon made me a women so I could be more compatible with men. Does any of this make sense? Because equating transgender with homosexual does not really make a lot of sense to me. Homosexuals are homosexuals and heterosexuals are heterosexuals and transgenders seem closer to heterosexuals in the "big picture" than they are to homosexuals. At least in my thinking. So now, let the flaming begin...
Posted by: Bob R | Jun 9, 2008 4:02:41 PM
Thanks, Bob R. For years I have been saying that other than oppression, I do not feel I have anything in common with trans people.
This isn't "transphobia" at all. I have two good friends who are transgendered - but I don't think they are a part of the struggle for "Gay rights." I acknowledge they have the struggle for "trans rights," but I believe there to be a difference between the two - and also believe in equal rights for both.
PEKEMO, this actually does nothing to depict the "diversities of the American family," Beatie and his/her wife are from the UK. I would hope that American doctors would conduct more thorough examinations and trials into how the extensive hormone treatments that Beatie has received for years would affect the growth and development of a fetus inside his/her womb. If this baby comes out with any abnormalities, the anti-gay communities will have a field day - and "evidence" to back up their claims. It is naive, I think, to say that this doesn't present a possible setback to our movement.
Posted by: Dan B | Jun 9, 2008 4:21:17 PM
I don't get it. This is one thing I cannot get my mind around. I try; I really do, but I just don't get it.
Posted by: Al | Jun 9, 2008 4:55:53 PM
Thomas Beatie is not from the UK. He lives in Oregon!
Good gawd, get your facts right before commenting.
Posted by: crispy | Jun 9, 2008 5:01:30 PM
all i'm seeing with this whole thing is a WHOLE lotta media attention they seem to be encouraging and eating up. sorry, that is what it appears to be. i thought they said they just wanted to have a baby and be left in peace at the beginning? or am i wrong? it seems to have turned into a circus. they seem to exhibiting *really* poor judgment on a lot of things. why show the juxtaposition of shaving your face and pregnancy? what does that *really* prove? eh, just my two cents. they are the ones who have to live with all of this at the end of the day. if they can, live and let live.
Posted by: chuck | Jun 9, 2008 5:20:20 PM
For the 89-millionth fucking time is it too much to ask queens to actually read something once in a while rather than relying on word of mouth for their "facts" and "reality"? The claim that it was transgendered people OR transvestites that "started the Stonewall riots" is a MYTH! Apparently an invincible one, but a myth nonetheless.
The gender-defying habitues of the Stonewall were primarily "scare queens" or "flame queens" who displayed "low drag," e.g., makeup, teased hair, but not full drag which was illegal in public and rare in the Stonwall per David Carter's "Stonewall: The Riots that Sparked the Gay Revolution."
Even the legendary Ray "Sylvia" Rivera who pushed this envelope further and further and was there denies not only having started it herself but knowing how did or what their characteristics were. Some swear it was a butch lesbian who threw the first punch or resisted arrest but she's never been named nor come forward as several other individuals who were there have.
Even IF the Stonewall riots HAD been ENTIRELY full-out transgendered people in total cross-dress it would not redeem the pathological attention circus that "We just want our privacy" Beattie is putting on.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Jun 9, 2008 6:14:46 PM
"And as far as transgenders setting back gay rights, remember it was the trannies that started the Stonewall Riots."
That is such a fucking lie; consult Duberman's 'Stonewall'. Sylvia Rivera was still a man when she led the riot against the cops. It was in fact the Village Queens -- our fellow gay men, not trannies -- who did the deed alongside a few dykes and regular gay men. Trannies onlys started to pop up in our organization in the last 20 years for unknown reasons along with bisexuals, who also do not belong. Why don't they form their own organizations and stop glomming off of us?
Posted by: Matt | Jun 9, 2008 7:20:13 PM
Whether or not they qualified as "trannies" in 1969 is beside the point. People who fought back at Stonewall were definitely marginal. They were not buttoned-down, gender-conforming, clone-ish predecessors of gay republicans who considered themselves "just like everyone else" and wanted to get married and have a house in the suburbs. Those people had too much to lose to put themselves on the line or risk being in the media in 1969.
The debate about who belongs in the movement and who doesn't goes back at least a century. (See Magnus Hirschfeld's "third sex" vs Adolf Brand's "manly" men).
I still see throwing the transpeople out of our movement as closely akin to the policing that tells us not to accept flamers or leather queens or (fill in the blank, anyone not like me) at pride parades because it gives us a "bad name" or "reflects badly on us" in the media.
It reeks of heteronormative hegemonic control by having us police ourselves, and it makes me sick to my stomach. I'd rather side with the marginals, thank you, even if as a WASP college professor I could easily rail against trans people and claim that power the hets will grant me any time I want.
I agree with those who have said that people should be addressed with whatever pronoun they themselves prefer, regardless of body parts and chromosomes. He is pregnant. Get over it.
I will also repeat my claim that what disturbs people about this (which gay men SHOULD get) is that male bodies are defined as integral: they are not penetrable by penis coming in or baby coming out. The same horror of penetration (which may sound familiar) is now recast as a horror of bearing a child.
Posted by: Kevinvt | Jun 9, 2008 8:05:22 PM
The great problem with the transgendered who want to change their sex is that they are essentially unhappy with the way they are. They are in many ways like the Ex-Gays trying to change their orientation. It can't be done, but if everyone pretends it can be done, then they MIGHT be happy. It's also very different from guys who are simply swishy or prefer women's clothes. The transgendered have attached themselves to the gay rights movement because they are few in number and need another trans-normative group to gain any political power. Unlike the Ex-Gays, as our allies they escape criticism for being unrealistic and self-hating. Now, their are those who's sexual re-assignment surgery was performed against their will (or without their informed consent at least) when they were infants, and who do deserve our sympathies, but while it's easy to see the milepost of gay rights leading to a finish line, the transgendered only have the vaguest notions of how to change things for their betterment and no true hope of any final resolution to their liking.
Posted by: anon | Jun 9, 2008 8:26:20 PM
The great problem with the transgendered who want to change their sex is that they are essentially unhappy with the way they are.
Let me rephrase that the way most homophobes think: The great problem with the gays who want to change their object choice is that they are essentially unhappy with the way they are.
Gay men are born with penises, therefore they should f**k women. Why do they insist on f**king men instead?
Trans women are born with penises, therefore they should live like men. Why do they insist on living like women instead?
What part of this is not comprehensible? Thankfully most of my students these days get it. Transphobia will eventually go the way of homophobia. Yes it will take longer, and yes they are a smaller minority than we are, but it will happen.
Posted by: Kevinvt | Jun 9, 2008 9:33:50 PM
If you were born with a va jay jay, you're not a man. You can be a very nice transgender person who is having a baby, but you are NOT a pregnant man!
Posted by: Hickory | Jun 9, 2008 9:39:27 PM
Very well stated, Bob R. I really don't feel any connection with transgendered people, except in a parallel way -- being part of a sexual minority that is discriminated against. I have understanding and compassion for anyone in this often difficult situation, but just can't identify. They basically want to change their gender, and that is totally fine. I, as a gay man, have no desire to change my gender.
Posted by: k | Jun 10, 2008 12:47:38 AM
Very well stated, Bob R. I really don't feel any connection with transgendered people, except in a parallel way -- being part of a sexual minority that is discriminated against. I have understanding and compassion for anyone in this often difficult situation, but just can't identify. They basically want to change their gender, and that is totally fine. I, as a gay man, have no desire to change my gender.
Posted by: k | Jun 10, 2008 12:48:24 AM
I found it disturbing to read all the hateful and ignorant comments on Oprah's website, but expected not to see the vitriol or misconceptions in comments on Towleroad.
I'm a gay man, and like many others I consider Thomas' struggle to be very much different from those I face. Just because I do not understand or experience what he does does not mean that I cannot accept him and others like him as fellow human beings without making assumptions that their motivations for having children or living as they do are based on something sinister.
There are so many misconceptions on here that I'm not sure where I would even start to correct them. But the doctor who is treating Thomas says that the fetus seems to be very healthy and the pregnancy is a normal one, regardless of how unique the parents are.
Thomas and his wife came across as an articulate and loving couple who just want to raise a family.
So what if they are taking advantage of the opportunity to make money from the photographs. They are likley top face extra financial struggles, not because of anything inherent to their situation but because of the ignorance of others which could mean changing homes or jobs.
How many of you, if you were getting ready to raise a child, would turn down a newspaper that wanted to pay money for a picture of the new parents, if you knew that money could help pay for a better future for your child?
I'm happy that Thomas and his wife will have the family they have always wanted, and for those (far too many) who would snicker at them or their child, I would far rather have Thomas and his family as my neighbor than someone who is so negative toward fellow human beings over something as irrelevant as what you imagine their genitalia looks like.
Posted by: GregV | Jun 10, 2008 12:55:03 AM
Thank you Gregv, my thoughts exactly! And thank you Alex for the lovely comment
Posted by: Pekemo | Jun 10, 2008 2:38:55 AM
I agree with Thomas Beatie... love is love no matter how you have a child. If you can do it and want to, then you should! Who are we to say no?
Posted by: Melissa | Jun 10, 2008 3:42:15 AM
The kid is going to have a long hard road, selfish is the word.
Posted by: patrick nyc | Jun 10, 2008 7:01:50 AM
Enough with this sideshow hustler! She (yes She not He, for people who identify as male don't choose to be pregnant) wants your attention and then she wants your money come book release! Just say no to this insincere tale of transgenderedness. Rent a documentary on The Bearded Lady for a more honest and compelling biography.
Posted by: rege | Jun 10, 2008 8:20:46 AM
KevinVT, you stated everything I believe about this issue so eloquently. Thank you.
The push for "we're just like straights . . . with a TWIST" that's been part of contemporary gay politics unnerves me. I've always felt the contribution the gay movement makes to the larger culture is the expansion of definitions of gender and sexual behavior . . . and sexual autonomy. While I can understand there are suburban gays who go to WalMart "just like everyone else," it doesn't mean that suddenly we have to hide the drag queens/transgender, the leather daddies, the hairdressers and the like because "it gives us a bad name!"
And for the record, there are many transgendered people who transition and live as gay people. So it's not like they all suddenly become hetero. As a short, bookish, sissyish kid growing up in a machista Latino culture, I have fought to regain a sense of my masculinity. When I see a FTM who doesn't even have male genitals claim they are a man, I identify greatly with their struggle.
Posted by: Alex | Jun 10, 2008 9:43:22 AM
Guys,
or whatever you are, this is an abomination in God's eyes. I suggest this fellow find the Lord Jesus Christ, and repent his ways. I know you guys are going to rag me no end, but look to nature for your facts if you must. And please dont quote the sea-horse, he only looks after the brood!
What kind of child is going to look forward to going to school and saying her father gav birth to her!
Posted by: New Faith | Jun 10, 2008 9:59:40 AM
"The kid is going to have a long hard road, selfish is the word."
Now where have I heard that before? Hmmmm.....
Posted by: Kevinvt | Jun 10, 2008 10:40:01 AM
ALEX, KEVINVT, GREGV & PEKEMO:
Thanks for speaking up. It's exahausting to find such bigotry within the gay world. But what do you expect: gay guys aint saints, and they aint special...no, suh.
Look, what's the difference between a gueen in full drag and one in just a little make-up and tight jeans. Do straight folks see a difference? Did the cops raiding The Stonewall in 1969 (and every gay bar in America) see a difference? And if they are really homophobic straight folks--hell, they don't see a difference between T.R. Knight and RuPaul. We're all faggots to them.
No, gay men aint special at all, but it can't be penis envy...maybe it's all that effort put in to trying to get rid of the syballant "s". Just accept it the way Carol Channing taught us to, brothershs & shisters.
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Jun 10, 2008 11:09:32 AM
Thanks, KevinVT, for the false conflation, but bigots regard gay acts as unnatural, not impossible. I can't complain if a guy wants to live as a women (or vice versa), but it's currently impossible to actually become a women (or vice versa). Sadly, there is too much myopia on this topic to have a rational discussion. Derrick, you're going to be carrying water to the ends of the earth for people who will never be happy.
Posted by: anon | Jun 10, 2008 12:05:23 PM
"people who will never be happy"
That too sounds awfully familiar. I can find countless quotations from the 50s and 60s of "experts" saying there is no such thing as a happy homosexual.
They were wrong, too.
Posted by: Kevinvt | Jun 10, 2008 12:10:09 PM
so a girl is having a baby that looks like a guy that cut her boobs off. my amigo ronnie is a dr that did a selfsurgery that put a uterus in him and ovaries and then he had his parts and he ejaculated and put the sperm in his uterus with the egg that are fertalized and he is actually giving birth as we speak. its so cool how the baby will be like his clone or close to it. its a girl tho so idk how it will be like him
Posted by: heywowohey | Jun 10, 2008 3:48:42 PM
Anyone who does not see this is a pubicity whore is a self rightous fool. There are a few folks posting here that qualify.
I have actually ended two mild friendships over the fact that I am very clear that is not a man having a baby.... as a man can not have female reproductive organs producing a child. Period.
Everyone saying anything else is just playing hipster trendy PC games.
Posted by: RJP3 | Jun 10, 2008 6:49:58 PM
It is not transphobic to state the truth - this is not a man having a baby.
It is a woman who stopped her sex change procedures to have a child - thus she is still a woman. She may feel like a guy in side and she may want to be called he (and to be polite most will) but she is still a she.
If SHE was uncomfortable with being a woman she could not have dealt with having a child.
When she completes here process and stops using her female reproductive organs to produce children - then she can be called a she - sorry not until except to coddle her.
Posted by: RJP3 | Jun 10, 2008 6:56:42 PM
I just heard what I consider the best quote on Thomas Beatie. Tell me what guys think, I think it's brilliant, "Is he a man? Yes, is he a male? No" For me that wraps it up quite nicely
Posted by: Pekemo | Jun 11, 2008 6:23:19 PM
I just don't get it. If she really felt like a man and transformed herself into one, why getting pregnant? That's beyond me.
Posted by: ANA | Jun 12, 2008 1:51:31 AM
Listen, I am very supportive of a persons right to be trans to the sex they believe they really are.. but I am very upset that this circus show is being allowed to go forward as a man having a baby, for real. She is a she, born a she, and OBVIOUSLY has decided to keep SHE parts allowing this pregnancy to go forward. Nothing wrong with any of that. BUT BOTTOM LINE. She is NOT a HE.
I hope the lesbian couple and their baby will be very happy.
Posted by: HOT | Jun 14, 2008 12:42:56 PM
What if a pharmaceutical company pumped a woman up with male hormones for a few years and then impregnated her. Would you be all pleased and congratulate her? Or would you be all concerned about the short and long term effects on the unborn fetus? One of my best friends died last year after a 28 year history of R.A. It was her conscious decision NOT to have children after her body was a walking pharmacy.She feared that all those drugs she took to make her life more bearable could have repercussions. As it is she died of cancer at age 48,who knows what role years of medications played. Fetal development is very intricate with a long list of DO NOTS attached. If this Thomas Beatie wants to play diletante with her sexuality I'm all for her rights to do so. . . but this is a child being born with a potential list of medical complications that would make Dr. Moreau second guess himself.I'm hoping for the best for this baby. in that she has a full and HEALTHY life.
Posted by: Flipper | Jun 15, 2008 3:34:26 PM
Wow...
Just wow...
Look at all the gay bigots.
The same bigots who claim that gay rights are not special rights. And then turn around and spew ingorant hate as if it were Gospel.
The same ones who would freak when this shit is said about them doing it to others.
Using the language of homophobes to do it with no less!
I think any legislator considering advocating for gay rights would be well advised to read the commentary here before voting.
Maybe then, they will think twice about empowering such hatred and immorality.
Because hate is hate, as much as gay men shrilly claim otherwise. And hate has no place in a group of people wanting freedom from hate.
Your special bigotry is not special because you are dishing it out and not taking it.
Posted by: Pissed off transwoman | Jun 18, 2008 4:38:29 PM
That THING is not a MAN. It's just a hairy WOMAN with HER breast cut off.......
Posted by: Cindy | Jul 3, 2008 9:54:31 PM