On the pregnant man
Update: Nomen disagrees here and here.
Sorry, I don’t see it. This is not a pregnant man. This is a pregnant woman who has been surgically and medically altered to appear masculine. You can put whatever bow and wrapping on that you want but it doesn’t change the fact that underneath the hood, the parts are female. Men can not have babies. Note: I think that Nomen is addressing the psychological/sociological aspect of the transgendered and I am talking about what physically is reality.
April 7th, 2008 at 8:40 am
that qualifies as the most pigheaded load of utter fail i’ve seen you agreeing with so far, Uncle. (my own opinions on the matter are on record over on the Lawyers, Guns and Money blog. you may have to search for the two different threads on the subject there, both by co-blogger Bean.)
April 7th, 2008 at 8:48 am
addendum: quick links to my opinions, just in case anybody wants to know what they are before they start flaming me for them —
http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2008/04/raising-and-answering-question.html#545857
http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2008/04/more-on-thomas.html#546266
April 7th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Okay, while we acknowledge the fact that men cannot have babies, and that’s nobody’s fault (not even the Romans’), we acknowledge that he has the RIGHT to have babies!
Who knew Monty Python saw this coming?
April 7th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
So a women taking drugs and dressing like a man got pregnant? Funny how this is being played like some sort of great diversity coup, as if gender or sex or whatever is being confused is a nominal, subjective attribute of humanity twisted into a biased, hateful view due to Republicans/Conservatives/Non-black Christians manipulation of the major media.
Still do not understand why rules have to be made/destroyed to suit the most extreme, inane case.
April 8th, 2008 at 12:51 am
A woman with no breasts is pregnant.
Dog bites man.
Water is wet.
April 8th, 2008 at 6:47 am
Uncle view: the pregnant “man” is a woman.
Nomen view: the pregnant “man” is a “man,” ‘cuz words like “man” and “woman” don’t really mean anything.
Either way a nonstory.
April 8th, 2008 at 7:55 am
wrong, xrlq. the words mean plenty, they just don’t mean what Uncle thinks they mean. (if they really meant nothing, there’d be no point in anybody switching genders at all.)
April 9th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Nomen, “man” can of course be used in a gender-neutral sense, e.g., mankind. Setting aside that wrinkle, as we must, if the word “man” includes anyone with two X chromosomes and a vagina, the word means nothing. It sounds like you are arguing that anyone who considers himself/herself a man/woman, is. By that definition, the story is a non-story, as no one ever claimed a biological woman can render herself incapable of childbearing simply by thinking of herself as a man, any more than I can render myself capable of flying by thinking of myself as a bird.