GenderLife Forum: The Information Exchange

i'll admit i had some qualms about the publicity hog way this was initially handled, but i wish nothing but joy to the parents:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5302756&page=1

Well yeah it is great that they are having a child but I am put off by the tagline 'pregnant man'.

Seems misleading, as if he somehow managed to concieve with no womb or ovaries.

Obviously not the case.

Would it not then be misleading for an MTF to be called a woman before she has SRS? That smacks of double standard, Jenny. Thomas Beatie was a man before he became pregnant just as Christine Beatty was a woman while she was still pre-op. We can't have it both ways.

People aren't interested in fairness, for the most part, so they choose to have it however they want.

At least the ABC news article was handled with a little grace, using the proper pronouns and not sensationalizing the story.

I'm totally interested in fairness. That's why I advocate stringing up Barney Log Cabin Frank by his nuts and flogging him with a live electrical wire. I know some people might consider that a bit extreme, but considering the cummulative effective of last fall's betrayal on the lives of all the transpeople who will be harmed by it, it seems like a fair trade to me.

Discussion?

Well if a guy with a working scrotum has a baby then call me lol!

well, live electrical wire i'm not so sure about........but i certainly felt betrayed and stunned by barney rubble's decision to consign our community to society's scrap heap. were i a mass resident, i'd be voting libertarian/green from now on....

Fairness is metalogically impossible.

You'd need a brain that has complete, consistent knowledge for that.

He didn't hurt anyone but himself. Patience.

I'll restate my comment i think.

"People aren't interested in fairness, unless they're treated unfairly (in the negative sense, for those of you who are pedantic)"

As someone who was fired from her job in 1985 for transitioning, I must disagree. Frank sharpened the divide between transpeople and our detractors, his self-serving act to (A) advance ENDA at that time and then (B) create a separate bill that did pass, only strengthened the position of those who believe the "T" should be tossed aside. I was 27 when I felt my first employment discrimination; I just turned 50. Unlike some who've amassed a lot of money prior to transitioning, I've built my small nest egg entirely from a job I was blessed not to have been fired from when I retransitioned in 1989. In this economy, no job is safe. How patient should I be?

I believe it is medically feasible for a person who was born male to carry a fetus to maturity and give birth by Ceasarian section. Ectopic pregnancies are not uncommon among female humans, where a fertilized egg fails to be implanted on wall of the uterus. In some cases of abdominal ectopic pregnancies, the fetus has managed to develop normally and survive the medical procedures necessary to deliver it.

Of course, experimenting with ectopic implantation of a fetus into even a willing individual would be ethically appalling at this point. I think medical science is a long way from developing a safe and reliable procedure, but male pregnancy may indeed become an option in the not-too-distant future.

From Catch-22, when Chief White Halfoat is complaining to Yossarian about the persecution of his tribe:

"Racial prejudice is a terrible thing, Yossarian. It really is. It's a terrible thing to treat a decent, loyal Indian like a nigger, kike, wop or spic." Chief White Halfoat nodded slowly with conviction.

I see it differently. Nothing was going to pass unless both the house and senate passed veto proof bills and that wasn't gunna happen. Frank unintentionally exposed the hypocrisies and weakened the position of those who believe in rights for some groups but not others. I think the bill that ultimately passes should be broadened not narrowed. It should state that discrimination is illegal against any citizen and then go on to name race, religion, gender identity etc. That way someone forgotten can seek recourse if say they are a member of a gas guzzling car minority and their employer is an electric car fanatic. Maybe a better example is a smoker who is fired for smoking while not at work. That is btw a real example. It has happened. Give me a break. The rationale that it is for the persons own good is hollow as is the medical cost argument. If that is allowed to stand a cost argument can be used against any group by an employer who wants to assert one.

Race, religion, sex, etc. are already covered under Title VII. The whole point to ENDA to add LGBT to those Federal protections. FYI, even the gay-only Barney Bill wasn't passed with a veto-proof majority. HR 2015 should never have been introduced when it was, at least until this transgender-issue hearing had been done, but Frank and the HRC were more interested in scoring points with the wealthy gay men — a constituency that is historically against us — who contribute the lion's share to both. The fact that Pelosi and Frank were both scheduled to be honored at HRC dinners just after 2015 was brought to the floor is pretty clear evidence it was a political stunt, one that neither the HRC nor Frank counted on backfiring so badly, with 300+ LGBT organizations condemning our betrayal.

I think we are saying similar things using different words. FYI (as you are fond of saying) as we go into the new administration we and all other groups who suffer discrimination are stronger than last year and hopefully a new president will sign a bill so we won't need it to be veto proof. Lets leave no one behind. Basic rights should apply to everyone. Yes I know darn well who is covered already. Do you think any group should be left out?

Apparently not. Title VII covers race, color, creed, religion, national origin and sex. The Americans with Disabilities Act (which specifically excludes us) covered another huge segment. I know that, having lived 12500 years ago it's tough keeping up with current events, but LGBT is the final frontier, honey.


As far as your example of gas-guzzling car owners discriminated against by Prius-owning bosses, that's too ridiculous of an example to even debate. The essence of discrimination is the unequal treatment of people based on matters that aren't a matter of choice, that are beyond control. Nobody (knowingly) gets to pick what race, sex, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity they are born with, so these are the most important to cover.

You always say the nicest things. I believe Barney did us a big favor. I know you may not agree and will probably try to denigrate something in this post. I have grown quite fond of your feeble (in my opinion) attempts. Go ahead. Take your shot.

I can't think of very many transwomen who do agree. But let's see, shall we?

2015 had sponsors enough to count for all but 18 votes needed to pass as it was originally introduced.

The reason given for splitting it (whereabout it gained 9 sponsors) was fear of a parliamentary procedure that hadn't been used in decades.

It was Politically judicious to push through *something* right then, as the campaign season was heating up and "everyone" knows this is a major turning point for the dems. They needed to do something right then.

So they tossed us under the Bus. And Frank took the lead, even over the counsel of Baldwin, who knew perfectly well what would happen.

In the end, even she struck a deal.

Frank did not do us a favor. We are the one's doing ourselves a favor. He did not damage his own constituency nor did he reduce his clout in the House.

His district is predominantly white, middle to upper middle class white gay men by a strong majority.

He's a toad,part of the assimilationist sorts that immediately preceded the mid 80's turn to militancy and out.

And he's a crafty politician.

It wasn't until well after the ENDA crap roared up that he came out with the eduction line, and he has an abiding and intense personal dislike of the current crop of trans lobbyists.

The assimilationist argument, however, is pretty weak, which he knows, since most transfolks enter stealth and vanish -- the ultimate assimilation.

THe political maneuvering he's untouchable on since he hasn't pissed off the core votes that directly put him in office. He's unreachable, and he knows it.

and this is the second bill he's killed in this manner.

He's not doing us any favors. By angering us, he's actually harming our ability to move forward. As muh as I persinally *loathe* to say it, the HRC is doing us favors. But then, they are currying our favor right now, as they've tapped their principal fundraising base and we're all that's left.

Twixt now and the first week in October, there will be an incredible amount of spin and effort and public "aid" granted by the HRC.

And then there will be something big the first week of October.

ENDA is *life* and *self* to Transfolk. Employment is where everything begins -- even with the AMA's support of insurance.

Without it -- and I've been seeing it now constantly for 6 months up close and personal outside of myself -- too many of us are trapped.

If you are working, you are *blessed* and damn lucky. And if you make more than 8 bucks an hour in the US, you are even more so.

One could argue that he spurred me (and others such as myself) into action to change this *on our own*. To create businesses and essentially practice against all others what is practiced against us and discriminate against the cisgendered.

But it wasn't *him* that did that.

It was why he is that way that did it.

The alarm bells ring whenever I hear or come across this stroy, I say come across as I have no intention of seeking out the story.

IMHO it just screams wrong on so many levels.

I do too, although I feel he did us a favor along the lines of the favor amyotrophic lateral sclerosis did for Stephen Hawking's scientific career, or that cancer did for Lance Armstrong. What he did was terrible but the unintended consequences may work out in our favor.

Well anyhoo, there still are no pregnant dudes.

Esp not Barney though God knows he's tried.

And thus it must follow that it is impossible for a preop to impregnate a woman, right? There was a pregnant dude and his name was Thomas Beatie. He's now father of the child he carried to term. Why would anyone have a problem with that? After all, don't we vociferously defend the notion that we are women born into male bodies? Some would say that is an equally absurd proposition.