It seems to me that no matter how politically correct I could try to be, and how sensitive to someone that has decided to undergo gender reassignment surgery, that if you got to all the trouble to change from a woman to a man but forget the most important part, you're doing it wrong.The pregnant "man" that had a baby in June is pregnant again. He had undergone the surgery to become a man, and is legally male, but kept his female reproductive organs so that he could have children. Seems to me that the female reproductive organs are the most important part. Thus, unless he is a seahorse or a cichlid, this female is pregnant again.
2 comments:
It is really obnoxious how it's continually reported that a "man is pregnant," without any real acknowledgment given to the fact this is a woman who's had partial, but not total, sex change surgery.
You or I giving birth would be newsworthy, but not this.
I saw a special on this, and found out that when he (she?) gave birth the first time, the hospital wouldn't put his name down as the father (as they requested) but would only put it as a mother. So I think that on the child's birth certificate, it's listed as her having two mothers.
But... to play devil's advocate - I mean, gender is such a huge gray area... biologically, I guess that she is a female, since she still has those parts. But - when a man decides to become a woman, he just has the outer surgery, but doesn't get his inside parts removed (not usually, at least). So does that make him still a man?
There is a funny saying - "It's easier to dig a hole than grow a pole". It's easier for men to be surgically constructed to have women's parts than it is for women to be surgically constructed to have men's parts. (And have them "work") So, I'm sure that played a part into why this guy didn't have the full surgery. A lot of people don't.
It's pretty crazy though!
Cheers,
Kristen
Post a Comment