Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

LGBT Question

By

I have no idea what’s going on in this article.  

the advocate

Can someone explain to me whats going on, and how?  Am I reading this wrong and it’s a woman having a kid?  what’s with the picture of the dude.  

Confusion abound.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. it is a common misconception that all transgender people have gender reassignment surgery.  the article explains Thomas’s situation here

    I am transgender, legally male, and legally married to Nancy…Sterilization is not a requirement for sex reassignment, so I decided to have chest reconstruction and testosterone therapy but kept my reproductive rights. Wanting to have a biological child is neither a male nor female desire, but a human desire…

    I stopped taking my bimonthly testosterone injections. It had been roughly eight years since I had my last menstrual cycle, so this wasn’t a decision that I took lightly. My body regulated itself after about four months, and I didn’t have to take any exogenous estrogen, progesterone, or fertility drugs to aid my pregnancy.

    • Sterilization is not a requirement for sex reassignment

      <

      p>I think in most states it is, and probably should be.  Regardless, sometimes people have a legal sex which doesn’t match their fertile sex, and no one should ever have to be sterilized, or be forced to revert back to a legal sex they have never lived as.  But then again, usually transgendered men don’t get pregnant, since that isn’t very manly, so she’s kind of messing with the program and perhaps should be forced to be legally female again.

      <

      p>Note that (s)he* would have been able to do this without being married, and (s)he would have been able to cut off her breasts and grow facial hair without changing her sex.  *It pains me to do that, usually I have no problem referring to people as their chosen pronoun, but in this case she’s gone quite public about not being a man, so it’s her own fault.

      <

      p>Also note that this did not require any genetic engineering, there was a sperm donor involved, because scientists are still a few years away from creating sperm from a woman or an egg from a man, which requires changing the genetic imprinting.  It is that sort of genetic manipulation that we have to prohibit, not this rare situation.  Opening the door to GE would make GE a widespread, expensive and eventually compulsory practice, affecting everyone, and it should be prohibited in order to preserve the dignity of natural conception and right to natural conception.

      <

      p>This was still natural reproduction, by a woman and a man, the baby will have a father (a sperm donor somewhere) and a mother without breasts and with facial hair.  The baby will probably be fine, but still it isn’t really fair to it.

      <

      p>Here is a good post on the interactions of legal marriage and legal sex change and a law banning same-sex conception.

      <

      p>

        • but they has more than one note in they’s repertoire, and isn’t as dogged about it as John Howard, and doesn’t seem to link this particular issue (about which JH was probably right) to all kinds of unrelated things.

          • such as marriage equality postings.  we all know that marriage does not confirm or deny any right to procreate.  but “they” just can’t pass up an opportunity to harass the gays.

            • And it should continue to confirm a right in principle to conceive of children together, using the couple’s own genes.  No one should have a right to conceive with someone of their same sex.  It has nothing to do with gay per se, but that law will effect the rights of same-sex couples.  Either we say we want to allow GE and SSP, or we say we don’t.  But it shouldn’t be stifled out of the conversation, instead, see it as an opportunity to achieve equal protections for gay couples right now.

Archives