Table of Comments (2948)

by section

Comments on

And you'd thought you'd heard it all...

Kamene Dornubari-Ogidi replies to Brigham on paragraph 3

Yes, modern technology is amazing.

but.

I think what really makes this story so captivating is the fact that no one has ever TRIED this before.

How often do you see a pregnant person that looks, physically, like a man walking down the street?! Beard and everything!

I concur w/ Brigham in that the fact alone that Mr. Beatie had the “gall” and courage to take on the pregnancy in today’s rather unaccepting culture is the real story.

Agreed with above. The technology that is available now-a-days is amazingly extraordinary and mindblowing all in one. However, at the same time, I don't understand how anyone could have the gall to do that sort of thing to themselves and then go public with the story as though it were some sort of publicity stunt in the first place. I find it highly disturbing that this "man" would become pregnant and endanger the childs psychological well being later in life.

go to thread »
Posted April 20, 2008  10:25 pm
Kristal Jackson replies to Stephen Geest on paragraph 6

I think to lactate you have to have breast tissue underneath it.

Well what an interesting point that the guru has. disgusting but true wow never thought about that fergy ferg. i have another question regarding that for the classes; its random but ill shoot anyway: If someone had a supernumeriary (third nipple) can you lactate from it?

go to thread »
Posted April 20, 2008  9:00 pm
Stephen Geest on paragraph 6

Well what an interesting point that the guru has. disgusting but true wow never thought about that fergy ferg. i have another question regarding that for the classes; its random but ill shoot anyway: If someone had a supernumeriary (third nipple) can you lactate from it?

go to thread »
Posted April 20, 2008  8:14 pm
Stephen Geest on the whole section

WoW what an interesting topic indeed i agree with alot of things that are being said in the blog and as i said earlier there are a good number of moral aspects to go along with this topic. but the question i have for the congregation is what if some day you make the decision to have kids and they grow up and they want to make the same decisions as this thing did. how would you react? how would you handle the situation?

go to thread »
Posted April 20, 2008  8:10 pm
Aadil Sarfani replies to Brigham on paragraph 10

I agree! Exactly! Is it so hard to adopt? I mean, if you’re gonna get a sex change, that’s a price you should be willing to pay.

I just think that it is highly irregular and highly unethical for this occurance to take place. I mean, although Beatie is technically and legally male, he's biologically female. This should rule out the ability for him to have children, especially with the health ramifications that it may have on the child with the testosterone treatments that Beatie has been recieiving for said ten years. I just think that if they wanted a child so bad, they should have just adopted.

go to thread »
Posted April 20, 2008  4:20 pm
Aadil Sarfani on the whole section

Just the day before I heard about this pregnant “man”, I actually stumbled on this story, about a man in India who was pregnant (not technically exactly pregnant). It’s a similar case (a man being pregnant), but doesn’t involve a sex change. It’s very rare and interesting.

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2346476&page=1

go to thread »
Posted April 20, 2008  3:52 pm
Aadil Sarfani replies to ethan nelson on the whole section

I agree that the parents will probably love and care for the child. But still some day, the child will find out. And this day will probably be sooner than later because the whole country knows because of the media.

i think that if they want to have the child like this that is their right as long as they protect and love and nurture the child. i mean some parents that are normal (man and woman) should not be parents due to negelct and inability to care for the child. as long as the parents try their best i think it should be possible for them to have the child. however the child may be affected by the testosterone that the "father" had been taking. wheather or not this will cuase damage to the genes of the eggs will have to be told at a later date. but it will be interesting to see how this story unfolds.

go to thread »
Posted April 20, 2008  3:48 pm
Aadil Sarfani on the whole section

First of all, I think this is absolutely wrong. What kind of psychological effects will this have on the child? The child could end up killing him/herself. This is a selfish decision by the parents.
Second of all, it is wrong of the media to (and the parents to let the media) make the whole situation public to where the whole country knows about it. The child won’t ever be able to live a normal life or at least keep secret how they came into the world. The whole country will know and the child will probably be the center of attention (in a bad way) wherever he/she goes.
Third, if “Thomas” wanted to have a baby in the future (and not adopt it), why get a sex change? I mean if he wanted to get a sex change, having to adopt a baby was the least price he should have had to pay.

go to thread »
Posted April 20, 2008  3:46 pm
Prashi on paragraph 1

When i watched Oprah about him he said int he beggining of the show that he had always felt like a boy and assoiciated with them and all, and thats fine. Okay so thats why he became as much man he can with today’s science. But then at the middle and at the end of the show he said that he feels like he wants to become a mother, hey im a guy, and I never feel that, sure id want to have kids, but not be a mother. If he wants to become a mother than how does he feel like a man. I think he’s just confused.

go to thread »
Posted April 20, 2008  10:13 am
Prashi on paragraph 7

This paragraph made me think is it fair for him to be having a kid. I mean is him having a kid in the best interrest for the kid. If he has a kid with multiple disorders and dieseases, then is it in the best interest for the kid. Or is it just him trying to make a point and all that. If the kid gets multiple cancers, and he was warned about this then i believe it to very selfish that he is having a kid after 10 years of testorone shots.

go to thread »
Posted April 20, 2008  10:11 am
Prashi on paragraph 3

Yes i watched this guy on oprah with Mrs. Ferg, and to me he looks like a man sure, but is still is a woman. Thats what I think anyways. I say this because he still has his female parts, and never got them removed, thus he is still like he was when he was a female. So how is he male if he never got his parts removed. I think its different and i don’t care if he wants to do it, but technically he is still a woman.

go to thread »
Posted April 20, 2008  10:09 am
kaitlin willems replies to Sussana Elkassih on the whole section

I agree with both Jocelyn and Sussana, Beatie is still biologically female. However, I also believe there is more to a person than the biological side. Im sure psychology plays an imperative role in Beatie’s cognitive thinking and behavior.
However, I dont know if it was in the couples best interest to let Beatie carry the child when it is unknown if the hormones have effected the eggs or will affect the fetus later.

Okay, I agree with Joce G “he” is still a female. First of all, Thomas Beatie is a female not male, “he” just underwent surgery that changed his outer appearance, thus if find it ironic that the media is going on and on about a man becoming pregnant, because truly Thomas is just a female, who looks like a man, that is pregnant…Thomas is not a man…Thomas is a women…I can’t stress that enough. Sure the government can identify him as a man, but in reality this is a woman who became pregnant not a man. Okay, (sorry if I seemed harsh) my stand on this couple becoming pregnant is fine with me. I mean why not? If they are going to love, cherish, care, and do whatever is best for the child then they have a right to do so. Yes, many will say it’s morally wrong and bring in religion, but placing religion aside there is nothing wrong with a simple couple giving birth to a simple child, that will be extraordinarily loved. Plus, there are some other “normal” couples who shouldn’t have even considered having children like Ethan said, thus congratulations to the soon to be parents.

go to thread »
Posted April 20, 2008  9:33 am
Bonnie Kellum replies to K. Wise on the whole section

Also, I’m wondering what the effect of taking hormones to induce male secondary sex characteristics would have on the baby. I know that women with PCOS may have increased levels of testosterone, but they can still have children. Would this not be the same issue for “him”? As long as he had stopped taking the hormones for an extended period of time before trying to conceive, wouldn’t he be on the same playing field as the thousands of women with PCOS?

Some of the big initial questions that pop up in my mind are is the wife considered gay? How is the "husband" really considered a husband if he's still biologically a woman? How will that affect the child to know their "dad" gave birth to them? Of course, i am a supporter of people doing what makes them happy in life and not letting anything hold them back, but this is just a strange situation. If I were the trans-gender individual, I don't know if I would want to risk my child being born with something wrong with them as a result of the testosterone injections. Regardless of whichever side people choose to stand on regarding this matter, this is definitely proof for strides in science in the modern world.

go to thread »
Posted April 20, 2008  8:09 am
Bonnie Kellum replies to K. Wise on the whole section

Kelsey raises an interesting point. I’ve been wondering how these two met. Did the real woman know the “man” was actually a woman. At what point do you tell your partner that things may not always be what they seem… is that first date material? And what are the stipulations for marriage? If two gay people can’t be married, but two genetically female people can, as long as one of them looks like a male, how is this any different? Anyways, I’m just curious about their relationship.

Some of the big initial questions that pop up in my mind are is the wife considered gay? How is the "husband" really considered a husband if he's still biologically a woman? How will that affect the child to know their "dad" gave birth to them? Of course, i am a supporter of people doing what makes them happy in life and not letting anything hold them back, but this is just a strange situation. If I were the trans-gender individual, I don't know if I would want to risk my child being born with something wrong with them as a result of the testosterone injections. Regardless of whichever side people choose to stand on regarding this matter, this is definitely proof for strides in science in the modern world.

go to thread »
Posted April 20, 2008  8:08 am
Bonnie Kellum replies to Sussana Elkassih on the whole section

This is true- Beatie is just a female who underwent in vitro fertilization. This really isn’t such a big deal. Oh my goodness, someone with male characteristics is pregnant! So what, “he” has a uterus and ovaries and all those great female reproductive organs. He simply got pregnant by IVF, which thousands of people do everyday, yet I don’t see the media following each story so closely. There really isn’t anything groundbreaking about this pregnancy, other than the fact that the “man” had to quit taking hormones so that he would be able to carry the baby.

Okay, I agree with Joce G “he” is still a female. First of all, Thomas Beatie is a female not male, “he” just underwent surgery that changed his outer appearance, thus if find it ironic that the media is going on and on about a man becoming pregnant, because truly Thomas is just a female, who looks like a man, that is pregnant…Thomas is not a man…Thomas is a women…I can’t stress that enough. Sure the government can identify him as a man, but in reality this is a woman who became pregnant not a man. Okay, (sorry if I seemed harsh) my stand on this couple becoming pregnant is fine with me. I mean why not? If they are going to love, cherish, care, and do whatever is best for the child then they have a right to do so. Yes, many will say it’s morally wrong and bring in religion, but placing religion aside there is nothing wrong with a simple couple giving birth to a simple child, that will be extraordinarily loved. Plus, there are some other “normal” couples who shouldn’t have even considered having children like Ethan said, thus congratulations to the soon to be parents.

go to thread »
Posted April 20, 2008  7:59 am
Bonnie Kellum replies to ethan nelson on the whole section

I think Ethan brings up an excellent point. If two people are in love and believe that they are going to be great parents and they do so to the best of their ability, then why should all of America be involved in their relationship? If everyone would just stay out of the couple’s business, the child might not have such a difficulty dealing with the fact that “daddy” carried him in his tummy for 9 months. However, news companies are going to be surrounding this family for years, which is sad when they might’ve had the potential to lead a quiet, normal (ish) life.

i think that if they want to have the child like this that is their right as long as they protect and love and nurture the child. i mean some parents that are normal (man and woman) should not be parents due to negelct and inability to care for the child. as long as the parents try their best i think it should be possible for them to have the child. however the child may be affected by the testosterone that the "father" had been taking. wheather or not this will cuase damage to the genes of the eggs will have to be told at a later date. but it will be interesting to see how this story unfolds.

go to thread »
Posted April 20, 2008  7:53 am
Karen MacPherson on paragraph 4

Yeah, I don’t understand how one can be legally one gender or another either… If some testosterone and some surgery can make someone change gender in the eyes of the government, something is messed up. But I also think that people should respect his decision to be a man, because that is how he sees himself. To me, it means nothing that he is legally male, but that he identifies as male.

go to thread »
Posted April 20, 2008  7:04 am
Karen MacPherson replies to joce g on the whole section

I agree with Joce G that Beatie is still a female biologically, but though this might sound weird, I don’t think that necessarily makes them lesbians. I always felt that being lesbian meant that you were attracted to the characteristics of women as opposed to men. And because of the testosterone implants, Beatie’s wife is married to someone that does have the characteristic of a man and who identifies as a male. The fact that he also considers himself male I think is enough to say that he is a male.

Beatie is still in my opinion, a female. She just had breast tissue removed and took hormones to adapt facial hair to look more like a male. I also believe the couple are lesbians. Beatie kept her female organs and underwent the process of vitro fertilization.

go to thread »
Posted April 20, 2008  7:01 am
Joshua Geevarghese on paragraph 10

think this kid will be like the kids that were adopted by lesbian couples. the kid will be confused of gender roles and the pyschcologist will follow him all the days of his life. i just think its wrong. i think they will be better ff with adopting

go to thread »
Posted April 20, 2008  6:29 am
Kishan Patel on paragraph 4

I agree with Brigham, the fact that Beatie is legally a man but has female genitals and lacks a Y chromosome is really confusing. The only real thing that would even be close to considering her for a man is that she has been on 10 years of testostorone treatments.

go to thread »
Posted April 19, 2008  4:10 pm
Kishan Patel on the whole section

Well Beatie choosing to have this surgery is kind of weird to me, but you know what I’m not here to judge. I’m still kind of confused on how if Beatie still has woman sexual reproductive organs and still be legally a man. But if Beatie wants to have child no one should be able to stop her, just because the child’s parents won’t be considered normal by society that doesn’t change that fact that they would be any worse parents then the regular man woman couple.

go to thread »
Posted April 19, 2008  4:07 pm
Destiny on the whole section

One more thing…if the couple didnt want media attention like they claimed, they wouldnt have brought in the media themselves. They would have gone to a secluded place to have the baby. It could have been kept under wraps,

go to thread »
Posted April 18, 2008  7:33 pm
Destiny on paragraph 4

I dont get how she can be considered a “he” when she doesnt possess a Y chromosome or primary sexual characteristics. It doesnt make sense. She didnt have anything constructed….only hormones added. Even though I sound crass saying it…I believe she just resembles a fuzzy, steriod-laden women.

go to thread »
Posted April 18, 2008  7:20 pm
David Golynskiy replies to Jocelyne on paragraph 9

Yea this is very wierd, in a BAD way. Everyone is amazed and awaiting the birth. It is like that baby is a science experiment. There are many hypotheses, what will the result be? A change is society? Any benefits?

Psychologically the child will have many problems growing up especially if it is born with birth defects as well. Having its birth so heavily publicized will not be healthy for him or her socially. This is not an even that will be easily forgotten.

go to thread »
Posted April 18, 2008  5:37 pm
David Golynskiy on paragraph 7

I too believe that there be birth deficiencies but, what if there is something positive out of this birth. What if the baby, even with defects, have some resistances or favorable attributes that a typical person might not have. It think it is possible because this is an unorthodox pregnancy. Anything could happen.

go to thread »
Posted April 18, 2008  5:28 pm
David Golynskiy replies to Destiny on the whole section

It doesn’t sound like it will be a sweet life for the baby when it is born, that is, if it is born. It might be a miscariage due to hormonal imbalances. Amyway, media has swarmed all over this subject. Personally, I don’t see what is so special. A man is not really having a baby…. There does not need to be so much hype about this it. As for the baby, it will probably also recieve unnecessary attention.

Should they be allowed to have a child? Duh...everyone is entitled to their own choices. Is it morally correct? Thats a whole different ballfield. Yes, there is the argument that they will most likely be more caring and nurturing to their child than a vast amount of unqualified parents are. However, what about the childs state of mind? OK, imagine it is "show and tell" day in school. Little Jimmie walks up to the class..."what did you bring to show us today Jimmie?" the teacher inquires. "Well," pronounced Jimmie (puffing out his chest) "I brought myself. See, Mrs. Fergie, my DAD gave birth to me!" Awkward.

go to thread »
Posted April 18, 2008  5:08 pm
Marcos on the whole section

Ethics of the pregnancy itself aside, and of course assuming that the child is born without any significant mental or physical handicaps, I would like to expound on the psychological situation for the kid. What we have then is a radical (radical as in new not bad) departure from the orthodox family unit. How does this affect the dynamics of raising a kid? Role reversal type scenarios have been discussed here, but what about the kid’s belief set? How will he/she integrate into a still predominantly straight society when their first opinions are shaped so differently? Will the parents raise he/she to be transexual/gay/lesbian, or will they allow he/she to have the choice they had?

go to thread »
Posted April 17, 2008  10:08 pm
Joshua Geevarghese on the whole section

i dont really no what to sa. but i think i have the same opinion as some of my fellow class mates . i will wait and see about the gender roles in the family and how the kid is doing. but i am suprised that how much medical technology can do. bu the think that confuses me isnt he going to breast milk or at least the hormones that triggers it. isnt there going to conflicts on hormones

go to thread »
Posted April 17, 2008  8:32 pm
Joshua Geevarghese on paragraph 8

thomas did look like a guy and he had facial hair. i did some research on youtube and i found the interview i tink its ok to post it here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ61u2jeQhE
im not a big fan of Oprah but she did a good job on the interview.

go to thread »
Posted April 17, 2008  8:26 pm
Sara Lacock replies to Destiny on the whole section

I feel sorry for the child because all its life it will be a show and tell. It hasn’t been born yet and is already going to be on Oprah. People are going to make a big deal about this after the child is born to see what happens. So, he/she will obviously know that something is not normal. While I agree that people have a right to choice, I think that they should consider the consequences.

Should they be allowed to have a child? Duh...everyone is entitled to their own choices. Is it morally correct? Thats a whole different ballfield. Yes, there is the argument that they will most likely be more caring and nurturing to their child than a vast amount of unqualified parents are. However, what about the childs state of mind? OK, imagine it is "show and tell" day in school. Little Jimmie walks up to the class..."what did you bring to show us today Jimmie?" the teacher inquires. "Well," pronounced Jimmie (puffing out his chest) "I brought myself. See, Mrs. Fergie, my DAD gave birth to me!" Awkward.

go to thread »
Posted April 17, 2008  8:25 pm
Brigham on paragraph 4

I think that even though Beatie is legally male, the possession of female genitals and two X chromosomes shouldn’t allow for the ability to have the legal title of “male”. It makes zero sense in my mind and I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one who thinks the same way.

go to thread »
Posted April 17, 2008  8:22 pm
Brigham on paragraph 10

I just think that it is highly irregular and highly unethical for this occurance to take place. I mean, although Beatie is technically and legally male, he’s biologically female. This should rule out the ability for him to have children, especially with the health ramifications that it may have on the child with the testosterone treatments that Beatie has been recieiving for said ten years. I just think that if they wanted a child so bad, they should have just adopted.

go to thread »
Posted April 17, 2008  8:20 pm
Joshua Geevarghese on paragraph 3

I also agree that man is playing the Gods role her. but thats not what i want to talk about. i was wonderin how much money did she or tell me her a he spend to be a man. how much trouble did he go through to change his gender and the think that amazes me is he got a wife. no more questions or explainations

go to thread »
Posted April 17, 2008  8:18 pm
Sara Lacock on paragraph 10

I can’t imagine growing up in a home as confused as this one will be. My dad has always been..my dad. He works and provides for the family as a traditional father does. My mom cleans, makes meals, and takes care of motherly things. I believe that we have kept these roles since the beginning of mankind for a reason. We fit best into the roles we have, not that woman can’t work and men can’t cook. But men are physically and emotionally better equipped for the provider postition, and women for the caretaker position.

go to thread »
Posted April 17, 2008  8:17 pm
Brigham on paragraph 3

Agreed with above. The technology that is available now-a-days is amazingly extraordinary and mindblowing all in one. However, at the same time, I don’t understand how anyone could have the gall to do that sort of thing to themselves and then go public with the story as though it were some sort of publicity stunt in the first place. I find it highly disturbing that this “man” would become pregnant and endanger the childs psychological well being later in life.

go to thread »
Posted April 17, 2008  8:16 pm
Sara Lacock on paragraph 6

This reminds me of all the talk I heard from people after they heard about the pregnant “man.” I remember telling someone that he was still genetically and biologically female. The amount of press and attention that this has recieved is similar to that of many changes in our world. One thing happens that some people agree with, and others follow. I imagine other transgender men will try to have children and before long, pregnant men won’t be as rare of a sight.

go to thread »
Posted April 17, 2008  8:14 pm
Kaston Murrell replies to Destiny on the whole section

Destiny makes an interesting point. The child could have an altered state of mind because it was birthed by it’s ‘father’. Then there is the fact that other children will probably make fun of him or her because of the unique situation with his/her parents.

Should they be allowed to have a child? Duh...everyone is entitled to their own choices. Is it morally correct? Thats a whole different ballfield. Yes, there is the argument that they will most likely be more caring and nurturing to their child than a vast amount of unqualified parents are. However, what about the childs state of mind? OK, imagine it is "show and tell" day in school. Little Jimmie walks up to the class..."what did you bring to show us today Jimmie?" the teacher inquires. "Well," pronounced Jimmie (puffing out his chest) "I brought myself. See, Mrs. Fergie, my DAD gave birth to me!" Awkward.

go to thread »
Posted April 17, 2008  7:56 pm
Sussana Elkassih on paragraph 10

I’m all for this couple having a child, I’m just afraid that with Thomas Beatie’s eggs being exposed to estrogen for a period of ten years will result with the child having birth defects. As I said before, the birth of this child will set a precedent for other couples in the same position. If this birth doesn’t work out, protestors will argue that “people” like Beatie and his wife are causing harm to a potential child. In a way there is a lot of pressure on this couple.

go to thread »
Posted April 17, 2008  4:58 pm
K. Wise on paragraph 6

I was wondering if there are any studies of females who have taken large doses of testosterone and had a pregnancy-if their children had any deffects. I understand that these circumstances are very odd, but I’m just curious as to how the baby will be affected biologically.

go to thread »
Posted April 17, 2008  2:17 pm
Stephen Geest on the whole section

i partially agree with isha and her point in that this is beyond science and there are not only physical aspects to this situation but that of moral values too. This is going to sound wierd but i am all about freedom of choice thats what this nations all about so if it wants to be a girl be a girl if it wants to be a boy be a boy just know i am against that but not there choice. stephen out

go to thread »
Posted April 17, 2008  11:41 am
Sussana Elkassih replies to joce g on the whole section

Okay, I agree with Joce G “he” is still a female. First of all, Thomas Beatie is a female not male, “he” just underwent surgery that changed his outer appearance, thus if find it ironic that the media is going on and on about a man becoming pregnant, because truly Thomas is just a female, who looks like a man, that is pregnant…Thomas is not a man…Thomas is a women…I can’t stress that enough. Sure the government can identify him as a man, but in reality this is a woman who became pregnant not a man. Okay, (sorry if I seemed harsh) my stand on this couple becoming pregnant is fine with me. I mean why not? If they are going to love, cherish, care, and do whatever is best for the child then they have a right to do so. Yes, many will say it’s morally wrong and bring in religion, but placing religion aside there is nothing wrong with a simple couple giving birth to a simple child, that will be extraordinarily loved. Plus, there are some other “normal” couples who shouldn’t have even considered having children like Ethan said, thus congratulations to the soon to be parents.

Beatie is still in my opinion, a female. She just had breast tissue removed and took hormones to adapt facial hair to look more like a male. I also believe the couple are lesbians. Beatie kept her female organs and underwent the process of vitro fertilization.

go to thread »
Posted April 16, 2008  11:48 pm
Sussana Elkassih replies to K. Wise on the whole section

I was thinking the same thing you were thinking. It would be horrible if this child was born with cancer to due testosterone injections by the parent, and what if the testosterone was expressed in the female child. I also feel bad for the child that will grow up confused on gender roles as they attend school and cope with the fact that their “father” gave birth to them not their “mother.” How would she explain and deal with that as a young child? …and we all know that personality is built on life experiences. Last but not least, the giving birth of this child sets a precedent for other couples who are in the same situation and want to have a child.

Some of the big initial questions that pop up in my mind are is the wife considered gay? How is the "husband" really considered a husband if he's still biologically a woman? How will that affect the child to know their "dad" gave birth to them? Of course, i am a supporter of people doing what makes them happy in life and not letting anything hold them back, but this is just a strange situation. If I were the trans-gender individual, I don't know if I would want to risk my child being born with something wrong with them as a result of the testosterone injections. Regardless of whichever side people choose to stand on regarding this matter, this is definitely proof for strides in science in the modern world.

go to thread »
Posted April 16, 2008  11:48 pm
Kaston Murrell replies to ethan nelson on the whole section

I agree with Ethan. We should step back and see how this situation unfolds. Also, people should alway have the right to raise children. However, I still maintain that if there are severe side effects with the birth and if they are related to the testosterone then maybe similar births shouldn’t happen.

i think that if they want to have the child like this that is their right as long as they protect and love and nurture the child. i mean some parents that are normal (man and woman) should not be parents due to negelct and inability to care for the child. as long as the parents try their best i think it should be possible for them to have the child. however the child may be affected by the testosterone that the "father" had been taking. wheather or not this will cuase damage to the genes of the eggs will have to be told at a later date. but it will be interesting to see how this story unfolds.

go to thread »
Posted April 16, 2008  7:54 pm
Andrea Deschenes on paragraph 3

I agree. I think that technology is amazing in the sense that we are able to change what god has created us. Man almost in a sense has equviliant powers to God, they are creating life in a sense. Not really life, but they are creating man from woman and vice versa. Who ever would have thought that was possible. And to not be able to tell at all.

go to thread »
Posted April 16, 2008  7:36 pm
K. Wise on the whole section

Some of the big initial questions that pop up in my mind are is the wife considered gay? How is the “husband” really considered a husband if he’s still biologically a woman? How will that affect the child to know their “dad” gave birth to them? Of course, i am a supporter of people doing what makes them happy in life and not letting anything hold them back, but this is just a strange situation. If I were the trans-gender individual, I don’t know if I would want to risk my child being born with something wrong with them as a result of the testosterone injections. Regardless of whichever side people choose to stand on regarding this matter, this is definitely proof for strides in science in the modern world.

go to thread »
Posted April 16, 2008  1:53 pm
Kamene Dornubari-Ogidi replies to Kaston Murrell on the whole section

I completely concur with Kristal. I think its more than obvious that the length for which she/he has been taking testerone hormone would have had terribly adverse effects on his/her eggs.

I believe that there is a high chance that something may be wrong with his/her child. I mean, yah, nothing like this has ever really been done before. But if the child did have abnormalities, I wonder if there would be some transgendered males who would strongly protest measures to stop pregnancy, and claim that it is their privacy and right?…

This is interesting. In my opinion Beatie is still a female because, genetically speaking, she is. However, the treaments she has been getting over the last ten years have likely damaged her eggs. Overall on the situation I believe it is a little bizarre to see what is happening. However, I believe she does have a right to do what she is doing. If later, however, it is found that the hormones she has been taking results in birth defects or other abnormalities, then it should not be allowed later.

go to thread »
Posted April 15, 2008  9:11 pm
Isha Banerjea on the whole section

I agree with most of those who say that Beatie is still a female, what I don’t understand is what qualifies someone to be able to say they are male if they are female or vise versa according to the government. Just because she had superficial changes to her body, it does not mean she’s not a woman anymore.Setting all science aside, I think that whoever truly desires children has the right to have them no matter if they are different. Her not feeling like a woman doesn’t make her any less of a mother.. or father.. whatever it is!

go to thread »
Posted April 15, 2008  6:22 pm
Kaston Murrell on the whole section

This is interesting. In my opinion Beatie is still a female because, genetically speaking, she is. However, the treaments she has been getting over the last ten years have likely damaged her eggs. Overall on the situation I believe it is a little bizarre to see what is happening. However, I believe she does have a right to do what she is doing. If later, however, it is found that the hormones she has been taking results in birth defects or other abnormalities, then it should not be allowed later.

go to thread »
Posted April 15, 2008  3:50 pm
Destiny on the whole section

Should they be allowed to have a child? Duh…everyone is entitled to their own choices. Is it morally correct? Thats a whole different ballfield. Yes, there is the argument that they will most likely be more caring and nurturing to their child than a vast amount of unqualified parents are. However, what about the childs state of mind?
OK, imagine it is “show and tell” day in school. Little Jimmie walks up to the class…”what did you bring to show us today Jimmie?” the teacher inquires. “Well,” pronounced Jimmie (puffing out his chest) “I brought myself. See, Mrs. Fergie, my DAD gave birth to me!”
Awkward.

go to thread »
Posted April 14, 2008  9:19 pm
David Golynskiy on paragraph 6

It will be interesting to see what happens to the “mother and child” connection. Who is the mother? Beatie is the biological mother so I guess that the baby would have a tendency to bonf with him/her but, Nancy is going to be breast feeding. I am guessing this has to affect the child somehow. And what ever it is. it is not good.

Another interesting thing I am wondering about is whether there will be after effects concerning Beatie He/she pretty much went back and forth between being a man and a woman. How could this affect he/she….?

go to thread »
Posted April 14, 2008  6:59 pm
joce g on the whole section

Beatie is still in my opinion, a female. She just had breast tissue removed and took hormones to adapt facial hair to look more like a male. I also believe the couple are lesbians. Beatie kept her female organs and underwent the process of vitro fertilization.

go to thread »
Posted April 12, 2008  12:51 pm
Angie on paragraph 8

I watched that episode of Oprah, and seeing Thomas Beatie, I was really surprised. I’m not sure what I was imaging he would look like but he didn’t look like how I imagined (if that makes sense). He was just awkward looking because he definitely looks like a man but just with a ‘baby bump’. It’s definitely very interesting to see how his pregnancy will progress. Personally, I would not have risked the health and safety of the child made from an egg that has been exposed to all the chemicals and hormones Beatie has taken. In my opinion, any chance of an increased risk of developing certain cancers should have deterred the couple considerably; though I respect what they are doing in regards to forwarding and championing gay rights. I guess we’ll just have to wait until July when the baby is born.

go to thread »
Posted April 11, 2008  5:28 pm
scienceguru replies to Andrea Deschenes on paragraph 6

When Beatie underwent sexual reassignment surgery, he had a breast reduction/reconstruction that resulted in removal and replacement of the nipple on each breast. I assume the mammary gland was removed or damaged in the process so that Beatie himself could not breastfeed. His wife, on the other hand, could do this for the baby if she chose to as the act of a baby suckling on the breast stimulates a reflex action in the mother causing lactation.

So if Beatie had his breast's removed than would the mammar glands still secrete milk after birth? Or would the stimulation of milk be stopped? Because if it was just the tissue removed, with the help of hormones, could it be possible to breast feed the child? Or perhaps pump the milk?

go to thread »
Posted April 9, 2008  8:18 pm
scienceguru on paragraph 6

No, he wouldn’t. When he had breast reduction, the surgeons also did a reconstruction as well which involved moving and replacing the nipple of each breast so that they would appear to be more centered. I would assume that the mammary glands were damaged or even perhaps removed.

It is possible that his wife could breast feed. She could produce the hormones needed for her to be able to do this. All that would be needed is mechanical stimulation of the breast (by the baby suckling) to stimulate milk production. It’s the same idea as wet nurses–back in the day, the wealthy and royals would hire a young girl (who may not have necessarily ever been pregnant) to breastfeed their babies. The simple repetitive mechanical stress placed on the nipple is enough to stimulate milk production in some women (by a reflex action).

go to thread »
Posted April 9, 2008  8:16 pm
Kristal Jackson on paragraph 6

What I’d like to know is whether or not Beatie would still be able to breast feed the child, or would his wife do it for him? Just because the wife had a hysterectomy doesn’t mean that she can’t produce milk – all she needs are the right horomones in the right doses.

go to thread »
Posted April 9, 2008  6:19 pm
Kristal Jackson replies to Andrea Deschenes on paragraph 7

I totally agree with you. There’s no way to know how the child is going to grow up knowing that his or her “father” is actually a female. That’s psychologically damaging.

I think that the risk of having such side effects due to the testosterone hormones should be a cue to the couple that having children would not be in their best interest. This child will not only have psychgolocial issues to worry about but potentially harmful side effects because its "father"/"mother" took injections. I don't believe that it is fair to the baby. I think that the couple perhaps should have though about adoption

go to thread »
Posted April 9, 2008  6:17 pm
Andrea Deschenes on paragraph 6

So if Beatie had his breast’s removed than would the mammar glands still secrete milk after birth? Or would the stimulation of milk be stopped? Because if it was just the tissue removed, with the help of hormones, could it be possible to breast feed the child? Or perhaps pump the milk?

go to thread »
Posted April 9, 2008  12:58 pm
Andrea Deschenes on paragraph 7

I think that the risk of having such side effects due to the testosterone hormones should be a cue to the couple that having children would not be in their best interest. This child will not only have psychgolocial issues to worry about but potentially harmful side effects because its “father”/”mother” took injections. I don’t believe that it is fair to the baby. I think that the couple perhaps should have though about adoption

go to thread »
Posted April 9, 2008  12:55 pm
Ty Vessels on the whole section

This is definitely a unique situation. While not the typical orthodox family I wouldn’t really have a problem with these to individuals raising the a child as long as they took good care of it. As ethan already said there are many typical couples out there that do a horrible job of raising the kids. However their are many unknown variables to this equation. While not a complete expert on the female anatomy a find it fascinating that he has carried the fetus so long after receiving the testosterone injections. This could be damaging just to him and the child. I have no problem with these to raising children, however because of all the unknown factors I have second thoughts about them being allowed to give birth to a child.

go to thread »
Posted April 7, 2008  6:12 pm
Kamene Dornubari-Ogidi on paragraph 7

If there is a notable surge of pregnancy among transgendered males due to the (successful) birth of Beatie’s child, and enough studies are collected to show a correlation between the chance of cancer and traces of the testosterone hormone, then this may well be the begining of a moral and ethical battle.

Wow. I’m looking forward to this.

go to thread »
Posted April 7, 2008  12:58 pm
Kamene Dornubari-Ogidi on paragraph 6

This is the most humorous coincidence ever! That you post about the possibilities of males being able to become pregnant over time, and a transgendered male does just that.

Well, this is a fun read. But he planned for the pregnancy, and as a transgendered male, I’ve got to say that I’m not incredibly shocked. As long as the ol’ ovary and uterus are still hanging around and he’s got supplemenatl hormones… there’s no reason why he can’t give bith.

However, didn’t this particular transgendered man remove his breasts? Is the amount of nourishment available by breastfeeding connected to or related to the fact whether the person has bosoms at all?

go to thread »
Posted April 7, 2008  12:53 pm
kaitlin willems on paragraph 10

I can see the family’s stance to why they would want Beatie to carry the child since the female cannot, however it puzzles me that the couple does not have the biological concerns that parents should have. With Beatie’s eggs constantly exposed to testosterone wouldnt the couple be concerned with the health of the child? Despite the ethical concerns that this case raises, I believe that is up to the couple themselves.

go to thread »
Posted April 6, 2008  5:33 pm
kaitlin willems on paragraph 7

well obviously since Beatie had been taking supplements such as testosterone to induce the male qualities that were wished to be possessed, one must wonder if the years of the eggs being exposed to such rashly different amounts of opposite hormones would not damage the egg or possibly have the potential to damage the fetus.

go to thread »
Posted April 6, 2008  5:25 pm
Jocelyne on paragraph 9

Psychologically the child will have many problems growing up especially if it is born with birth defects as well. Having its birth so heavily publicized will not be healthy for him or her socially. This is not an even that will be easily forgotten.

go to thread »
Posted April 6, 2008  3:11 pm
Jocelyne on paragraph 7

I agree there is risk involved in this situation and that it is unfortunate that there is a lack of reserarch for it. I think that the baby will have brith defects but hopefully they wont be as severe as cancer.

go to thread »
Posted April 6, 2008  3:07 pm
Jocelyne on paragraph 6

The human body is remarkable. As a man, Beatie can be who he wants and as a woman he is given a second chance to bring new life into this world. I hope their child is healthy and happy, but it might be hard for it to cope with the reality of his lineage.

go to thread »
Posted April 6, 2008  3:04 pm
Jocelyne on paragraph 3

It amazes me how people today take what god gave them for granted but it also pleases me that they are willing to explore their sexuality freely. I think that this mans decision to fulfill the role he was orignally given as a woman to have this child is one that should be respected and admired.

go to thread »
Posted April 6, 2008  3:01 pm
Kristal Jackson on the whole section

Oh….wow. This is an extremely controversial topic. I mean, there are going to be people on opposite ends of the spectrum here. There are people that will be for and against it. I’m hopelessly lost somewhere in there.

It’s a miracle that Beatie’s carried the fetus for so long after having taken the testostorone for most of her life, right? Like you said in paragraph 7, the eggs she still had would be affected by any drugs that he/she took. It will be interesting to see the effects in the child once it is delivered. I’d love to see that. A man giving birth. Biologically speaking, Beatie is still a female, but the government sees her as a male. It’s just…different. Then again, the world has changed so much since the times where this would be seen as the devil’s work. I mean, there’s cloning and all sorts of other things that no one would have ever dreamed of.

The other part of me is conservative Christian. Part of me says that this is wrong on so many different levels. I was taught that there are specific roles males and females play during their lifetimes, so something like this goes against all teachings of the Bible and God.

I believe that s/he should be able to carry their child in peace and that the child should not be treated any differently because of the decisions that its parents made. As for Beatie, I don’t agree with his/her decisions about certain things, but that’s a completely different topic. :)

go to thread »
Posted April 4, 2008  6:57 pm
ethan nelson on the whole section

i think that if they want to have the child like this that is their right as long as they protect and love and nurture the child. i mean some parents that are normal (man and woman) should not be parents due to negelct and inability to care for the child. as long as the parents try their best i think it should be possible for them to have the child. however the child may be affected by the testosterone that the “father” had been taking. wheather or not this will cuase damage to the genes of the eggs will have to be told at a later date. but it will be interesting to see how this story unfolds.

go to thread »
Posted April 3, 2008  7:20 pm