Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Transgender Man’s Pregnancy Roils Family Members
The title above was not a headline in the National Enquirer; it was the title of an Ask Amy column, from March 9. In reading the column I shifted between shock and confusion; the letter writer was in distress because her son’s decision to become pregnant as a transgender male had created a rupture in her family that she didn’t know to heal.
I couldn’t believe what I was reading. I know that gender and sexual identities have been tampered with and distorted for many years, but I wondered: how in the world does a transgender man become pregnant, and more importantly, how does this kind of insanity take place in today’s society?
Let me explain briefly how transgender pregnancy usually happens: either a woman who has decided to change her identity to a man becomes pregnant because she still has all the biological tools to do so, or a he/she has a female surrogate carry the baby. If you want to know more about these situations you can go here or here. For this post, I would rather spend my time exploring how this bizarre and depraved situation has developed.
Secularists have spent centuries trying to distort and eliminate gender distinctions. In the last 50 years in particular, their focus has been on gender equality and equal rights. Their efforts were rewarded by society and in some cases by the government’s insisting that women should not be deprived of the rights extended to men. Unfortunately, to meet their agenda, the secularists insisted that men and women were the same. To many this declaration was preposterous, since common sense and innumerable studies counter this premise. But the argument persisted. Without recounting all the distortions and lies the secularists used to perpetuate their ideas, we have arrived at a point where women can now die on battlefields, and men can wear make-up, earrings and even women’s clothes. (In Thailand these men are called lady-boys; our Thai friends admired the courage of these men in owning up to their preferred sexuality.) If the arguments for the exchangability of genders were so ridiculous, how did they come to be accepted? The destruction of the credibility and sacredness of the Judeo-Christian traditions has been victorious.
I was studying the Torah this Shabbat and reflected on what a profound treatise it is. Although secularists try to argue that it is a book of myths and violence, G-d created a way of life that not only provided rules and laws to follow: He also designed a framework and foundation that identifies, through the creation of Adam and Eve, the genders of male and female. He made it clear that there are only two genders, which meant that we didn’t have to spend our lives figuring out what we are. Instead, He gave us free will to fully explore who we are, how we can be loving and compassionate human beings, and how to serve our friends, family, society, and of course, G-d. We have not been forced into gender roles; rather, we have been blessed to discover what it means to be a man or a woman.
The devastation that the secularists have wrought, in trying to distort and confuse what it means to be a man or woman, has destroyed what it means to pursue the sacred, too. Instead they have stated that gender identification doesn’t guide us in deciding our roles to be fully realized human beings; it has become a field of experiment, mendacity and the mundane. Instead of pursuing ways to elevate ourselves and realize that we are created in the image of G-d, we can re-create who we are. Instead of our focusing on how to serve others, we become obsessed with how we can best satisfy ourselves. And if that means degrading ourselves in the eyes of heaven, trampling social mores and desecrating our bodies, then why not do it? In fact, the acronym for LGBT has been expanded upon to accommodate this exploration. “At full throttle, the letters wind up something like LGBTQQIP2SAA.” (You can go to the article to get the latest definitions.)
As a last effort, I thought I would check on how medical ethics approaches the questions of transgender male pregnancy. The National Health Service in Great Britain has stepped right up to support transgender and sex change requests. To fund a patient through their sex change and fertility treatment, the NHS spends up to £34,000. On average, it costs women £29,975 for a sex change and men £13,867.
The abstract from a report generated by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states the following:
Transgender individuals face harassment, discrimination, and rejection within our society. Lack of awareness, knowledge, and sensitivity in health care communities eventually leads to inadequate access to, underutilization of, and disparities within the health care system for this population. Although the care for these patients is often managed by a specialty team, obstetrician–gynecologists should be prepared to assist or refer transgender individuals with routine treatment and screening as well as hormonal and surgical therapies. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists opposes discrimination on the basis of gender identity and urges public and private health insurance plans to cover the treatment of gender identity disorder.
Although it doesn’t explicitly support transgender male pregnancy, wouldn’t refusing to assist this type of patient be discriminatory?
In a June issue of Scientific American, the main concern was not about the appropriateness of pregnancy for transgender men, but the risks involved. In fact, there was a discussion of uterine transplants for their patients.
So here we are. Transgender men can bear children, regardless of the impact on the children or society. The distinctions between men and women are meaningless.
Secularism has won.
Published in Culture
I think Cato & I tend to view this stuff with our own separate experiences of being considered an anomaly. We tend to know that those who ask for even more attention are either full of it or in need of genuine help — something that is impossible to decipher in the lens of media.
Every single word written in response to this idiocy is a waste of ink, positive or negative. Navel gazing, taken to the asymptotic limit.
Biology rules.
It’s absolutely not bigoted or uncaring to wonder. I wonder too. Judging with certainty, as though you know, and then seeking to impose your conclusions on others, however . . .
Feminists don’t like the idea of being owned by a man, but children brought into these relationships basically are things to make adults happy. I know they love them, but there is more to raising children than loving them.
You’re referring to Paul McHugh. He did not pioneer or perform sex changes. He took over the department that included them with the intent of shutting them down. He has since become increasingly irrational on the subject, claiming, for instance, that you can divide adult transwomen into those who transition in order to get preferential prison treatment, those who do so out of a sexual fetish for genital surgery and a third similarly trivial category, ignoring the millions who transition outside of prison and with no intent of getting genital surgery.
If you don’t like naval gazing, you have come to the wrong place. :)
Actually they are being spent in Great Britain, I believe.
Actually, I think these decisions are between the insurance companies and the patients in the US, aren’t they? The problem with the pre- and post-natal care and tax dollars is like the situation where the parents on drugs give birth to children who become drug addicts and have to be brought off the drugs. I wouldn’t withhold that care because the children didn’t choose to be born or to be addicts. I would have to say the same for children of transgender folks. I get your points, James. I guess I would have to stay with my premise that encouraging transgenderism as acceptable is simply wrong. And that I would wish society to discourage people from acting on these beliefs.
Well, I certainly can’t argue with this now.
I agree with almost all of this comment. How is empathy and open-mindedness more constructive? For whom?
I think you’re assuming a lot of things here. Earlier you said I was narrow-minded. I accept that we see this situation differently; you refuse to accept that my argument might have merit, so is that not narrow-minded? You said I was judgmental; I would suggest you are doing the same about my argument. Cruel is a bit of a stretch, too; my intention is not to punish people who are transgender, but to disagree with their choices on a moral basis. Finally, because I can’t put myself in another person’s shoes doesn’t mean that I can’t draw moral conclusions about their behavior. I’m not an adulterer, but I think it’s appropriate to make judgments about those who have affairs.But mostly I would suggest that your comments ring of the “thought police”; you tell me that I shouldn’t think the way I think. I obviously disagree.
Was the Dear Amy column about a British couple? My understanding was that the particular people you were deriding were American.
Medicaid exists, as do subsidies for health insurance and veteran’s care and government employee health insurance.
Might I suggest that denying them a hospital bed during childbirth is not the most humane or politically appealing way of expressing disapproval? Instead it looks like a way of disguising a desire to have the state affirmatively push your views as a defensive desire that the state not take your assets. If you do not distinguish between government money suckers and middle class transgenders, your problem is clearly not with the money.
Bruce Jenner has had a real struggle coming out as a transgender woman. He’s had breast augmentation but still has male genitalia. I think lots of men have a feminine side that doesn’t result in gender confusion. My own dearly departed, very much all male, husband of 48 years loved clothes, both his own and mine. In fact, he bought nearly all my clothes our whole married life as I hate to shop.
Now this thread is getting somewhere. Mrs. Goldwaterwoman, I would buy this book.
:-) :-) :-) You don’t know the half of it, and I’ll never tell.
I was referring to one of the other articles I quoted, James.
Now you are putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say they should be denied hospital beds. Any insurance provider can decide what will and will not be covered. And you ignored the last part of my comment:
I guess I would have to stay with my premise that encouraging transgenderism as acceptable is simply wrong. And that I would wish society to discourage people from acting on these beliefs.
@jamesofengland, I’ve been thinking about this comment and would appreciate your clarifying:
“Instead it looks like a way of disguising a desire to have the state affirmatively push your views as a defensive desire that the state not take your assets. If you do not distinguish between government money suckers and middle class transgenders, your problem is clearly not with the money.”
If you’re suggesting that I want the government to declare transgender behavior illegal, that is incorrect. If your point is that I think that type of behavior is immoral, you would be correct. But the government should never interfere with the choices people make in their private lives. At the same time, I don’t personally have to agree with their choices.
Then if someone’s life choice is to term such behavior as being “depraved” you ought to be cool with that too, then. Right? Or is it OK to judge people as long as their religious beliefs don’t line up with yours?
This is exactly what the big argument is today. The Libs want us to agree with it while we pay for it and penalize us if we object.
In the OP you talk about refusing to treat these sorts of patients. In #47 you said “I don’t want my tax dollars–my own funds–to pay for pregnancies of transgender people.” If you did not mean that people who might otherwise be provided with government healthcare during childbirth and who lack an alternative arrangement should be denied hospital beds, I don’t understand at all.
You don’t have to agree with their choices, although I think it would be more charitable to give them genuine consideration; a moments thought would have told you, for instance that no transgender thinks men and women are the same, as in the OP.
If you’re not opposed to the provision of basic healthcare to people you disapprove of, to treating them as well as you would have, e.g. Rapists and murderers treated, then we disagree but less vehemently than I feared.
This trans thing is interesting as the affliction seems to be that an individual, for some reason, does not feel that their body fits their mind. They’re mind believes it to be the opposite sex to their body. How is this different to anorexia? Where a person in their mind, believes themselves to be fat. So will starve themselves (to death in some cases) in order for their body to reflect what they feel in their mind.
Should we allow anorexics to continue to starve themselves in order for them to feel as if their body matches their minds?
I know there is a lot going with both afflictions but it seems we treat them differently. Why?
It will likely happen whether I “like” it or not.
Is it your preference, though, that they be denied support in childbirth?
I was using the statement of people believing that men and women are the same in the context of the arguments of secularists, not transgender people. I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear. And I have given their transgender choices consideration before this post, although not the pregnancy issue. I feel compassion for those who are truly confused about their sexuality, but don’t support their choices. And I definitely expect them to receive basic healthcare. I wonder how I led you so far astray, James. I am glad that we’ve cleared up some questions (at least I hope so).
A fascinating question, Mate De. I’ve never heard the issue framed that way. Thanks.
I’ll be honest–I am conflicted on this question, because a child is at risk. It comes down to the question of whether the child should be punished because of the poor choices of the parent. I don’t think I can go that far.
We are now surgically mutilating people who suffer from mental illness.
But the parent should be punished for their poor choices? If a veteran, for instance, or a school teacher, gets pregnant the government would generally financially support their care throughout the pregnancy (and consider much of that support part of the “basic healthcare” that you say you wouldn’t deny).
If you had your druthers, would that be denied to people who had had top surgery, as with the example in the OP? Or to people who transitioned socially? Or to those who took hormones? A combination of these things? What, specifically, is the step that would leave you feeling that the provision of healthcare provided to the worst criminals should be withheld, were it not for the interests of the child?
I’m going to make it an early night for a very early morning (and daylight saving time on top of it). Carry on . . .
Do you recognize that transgenders are your allies in the struggle for the affirmation of gender as a biologically important thing?
If you support the provision of basic healthcare but not of support in childbirth for the health of the parent, you’re using a non-standard definition of basic healthcare. I don’t know what else it excludes, but this may be part of the confusion.