Farmers Markets And Farm Shops
Shopping & Style0 min ago
Man gives birth
Thomas Beattie has given birth to a baby girl, first man to give birth!! Not possible for men to give birth,"He" is biologically a woman apparently he regrets not being able to breastfeed as "he" has had breasts removed. What is the world coming to!.In todays papers a grandmother aged 70 has given birth to twins!!
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Caribeing. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I feel sorry for the child. What sort of a life is she going to have. All the love from Mother/father isn't going to make up for the fact that other children will take the mick.
At the end on the day having ops and a bit of paper doesn't change the fact that this person was born a woman and has shown that fact by giving birth. Taking away the boobs and keeping the inners does not make it a complete sex change. So to me it was still a woman who gave birth not a man.
At the end on the day having ops and a bit of paper doesn't change the fact that this person was born a woman and has shown that fact by giving birth. Taking away the boobs and keeping the inners does not make it a complete sex change. So to me it was still a woman who gave birth not a man.
I actually can't see the problem personally, but then I like to think that if a child is brought up by open minded parents of either gender, sexual orientation or cross gender that it might end up being a very sensible, well rounded , non judgemental individual, and the more of those there are in the world the better;-)
other children will take the mick.
Thing is, kids get the mick taken out of them for everything - hair colour, height, social behavior, hobbies etc. etc. so I don't really see there's a special case to be made for not doing this sort of thing (and I guess the same applies to same-sex parents) on the grounds of bullying.
Thing is, kids get the mick taken out of them for everything - hair colour, height, social behavior, hobbies etc. etc. so I don't really see there's a special case to be made for not doing this sort of thing (and I guess the same applies to same-sex parents) on the grounds of bullying.
Yea I know that but why make it worse.
I am all for people having children no matter what if that child is loved and I can't say as this person will not love the child but they can't protect them from the rest of the world and the pain the child maybe caused by others.
It still does not chnage the fact that the parent is still a woman and not a man and the media is yanking the whole thing as if its some sort of miracal.
I am all for people having children no matter what if that child is loved and I can't say as this person will not love the child but they can't protect them from the rest of the world and the pain the child maybe caused by others.
It still does not chnage the fact that the parent is still a woman and not a man and the media is yanking the whole thing as if its some sort of miracal.
Well amen to that then. NOT.
Let's all conform and be too afriad to be different or speak about about a person's rights to live their lives uniterrupted by others unless they have done something wrong.
It's nothing to do with 'political correctness', it's to do with someone's basics rights to exist, as long as they do not commit any criminal act, as they choose, and not how you , me or the rest of the world think they should.
The real irony is that the only people the child will need 'protecting' from is people with opinions like yours.
Let's all conform and be too afriad to be different or speak about about a person's rights to live their lives uniterrupted by others unless they have done something wrong.
It's nothing to do with 'political correctness', it's to do with someone's basics rights to exist, as long as they do not commit any criminal act, as they choose, and not how you , me or the rest of the world think they should.
The real irony is that the only people the child will need 'protecting' from is people with opinions like yours.
I'm not having ago at the child NOX.
My main point is that the media keep referring to this person as a man when so obviously she is not as if its some sort of mirical birth.
This person was born a woman and has demonstrated herself to be just that in the fullest sense of the word, by conceving and giving birth.
Men can't do that. Nature dicatates it.
The only reason I can think of as to why she would then make such a big deal out of it is because she would like to make as much money as possible out of it.
I think the child will have difficulties with many others in her life time who genuinlly don't take kindly to it. There are a lot more out there and it is the childs welfare that matters.
Who metioned political correctness?
Who is arguing about the childs right to exisist?
It is the media's obssession with something as natural as this that is the problem. And it is natural because she is still a woman.
If she had really intended to live her life as a man she would have gone all the way but she didn't. Why didn't she other than to use it to have a child. Nothing out of the ordiary there unless u work in the media.
My main point is that the media keep referring to this person as a man when so obviously she is not as if its some sort of mirical birth.
This person was born a woman and has demonstrated herself to be just that in the fullest sense of the word, by conceving and giving birth.
Men can't do that. Nature dicatates it.
The only reason I can think of as to why she would then make such a big deal out of it is because she would like to make as much money as possible out of it.
I think the child will have difficulties with many others in her life time who genuinlly don't take kindly to it. There are a lot more out there and it is the childs welfare that matters.
Who metioned political correctness?
Who is arguing about the childs right to exisist?
It is the media's obssession with something as natural as this that is the problem. And it is natural because she is still a woman.
If she had really intended to live her life as a man she would have gone all the way but she didn't. Why didn't she other than to use it to have a child. Nothing out of the ordiary there unless u work in the media.
Hi Tiger, my response was actually aimed at puddicat not you, who was the one who mentioned politcal correctness.
"stop all pc nonsense,bet u the child will have to protected in some form for the rest of its life".(sic)
I was trying to point out that if everyone wasn't so interested in making judgements and assumptions about, well most things and people really, then the world would be a far happier , far less strife filled place.
It's my understanding that the legalities of this is that the person who carried the child is now 'legally' male, and lives as a man ( albeit the pregnancy is a bit of a diversion from that:).
Clearly we all know that he had to genetically start out being female, but the complexities that surround someone of trans gender are very psychologically deep and involved and I'm certainly not going to be the person to tell him that he's a woman, when he clearly feels that not to be the case and has undergone significant surgery to begin to remedy that and to live as a male. It's not my call. It's his life and the life of his child.
I'm sure none of us are perfect parents, we all make errors of judgement, yet whoever someone is, if they are stable, happy and willing to bring to birth and parent their child in a loving environment then surely that's something we should want more of.
If people view the child or her parents as a freak show, then that's their cross to bear and hopefully the child will have a stable enough home life to realise that and not be adversely affected.
"stop all pc nonsense,bet u the child will have to protected in some form for the rest of its life".(sic)
I was trying to point out that if everyone wasn't so interested in making judgements and assumptions about, well most things and people really, then the world would be a far happier , far less strife filled place.
It's my understanding that the legalities of this is that the person who carried the child is now 'legally' male, and lives as a man ( albeit the pregnancy is a bit of a diversion from that:).
Clearly we all know that he had to genetically start out being female, but the complexities that surround someone of trans gender are very psychologically deep and involved and I'm certainly not going to be the person to tell him that he's a woman, when he clearly feels that not to be the case and has undergone significant surgery to begin to remedy that and to live as a male. It's not my call. It's his life and the life of his child.
I'm sure none of us are perfect parents, we all make errors of judgement, yet whoever someone is, if they are stable, happy and willing to bring to birth and parent their child in a loving environment then surely that's something we should want more of.
If people view the child or her parents as a freak show, then that's their cross to bear and hopefully the child will have a stable enough home life to realise that and not be adversely affected.
Apologies Nox I read to fast for my own good sometimes.
I have know some gender changers in my time. But I feel that this woman isn't one of them. All of those I have known have gone the whole hog so to speak. This is because they genuinly feel that they are really the wrong sex. Nothing wrong with that.
But I can't help thinking that there is something strange about the whole thing. I must assume that the woman she now lives with cannot have children.
Did this person know this when she had the sex change?
If so fair enough.
If the answer is no then why was it not the partner that had the child. Would this not have been more in keeping with the tradition which they want?
Or is the cynic in me thinking it might be some sort of strange publicity stunt.
Either way the plain fact that naturally this person is still a woman and not a real man does not change.
There for making this whole story really over the top.
I have know some gender changers in my time. But I feel that this woman isn't one of them. All of those I have known have gone the whole hog so to speak. This is because they genuinly feel that they are really the wrong sex. Nothing wrong with that.
But I can't help thinking that there is something strange about the whole thing. I must assume that the woman she now lives with cannot have children.
Did this person know this when she had the sex change?
If so fair enough.
If the answer is no then why was it not the partner that had the child. Would this not have been more in keeping with the tradition which they want?
Or is the cynic in me thinking it might be some sort of strange publicity stunt.
Either way the plain fact that naturally this person is still a woman and not a real man does not change.
There for making this whole story really over the top.
The media keep sensationalising this story, with the headlines "Man gives birth to baby". The person who gave birth to the baby is a woman and always will be one.
Just because a doctor gives someone hormones of the opposite sex and removes a part of their anatomy, this does not make them a new physical sex. As of yet, it is not possible to perform such a miracle.
Just because a doctor gives someone hormones of the opposite sex and removes a part of their anatomy, this does not make them a new physical sex. As of yet, it is not possible to perform such a miracle.
I agree with velvetee this person is a woman and the press sensationalise the story with Man gives Birth. This person has put "Himself" in the public eye to court publicity. "He" appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show with "his" partner. I didn't see all of the show but he did look freakish, he sported a beard and moustache to make "him" look masculine but it didn't work. How are they going to explain to the child that her mum is her dad or vice versa!!!
This old cobblers really really gets on my tits - this person is a woman, she is not a man and never will be a man and the media referring to her as a him, as are people in this thread, does not make it so.
I'm afraid I just don't subscribe to all this "in the wrong body" rubbish.
Its like that Portugeuse bloke that won Big Brother a few years ago that people ridiculously refer to as a woman - cutting a dogs nuts off doesn't make it a bitch it makes it a dog with no nuts. I mean, christ, this thing looks like Desperate Dan, only more butch.
I'm afraid I just don't subscribe to all this "in the wrong body" rubbish.
Its like that Portugeuse bloke that won Big Brother a few years ago that people ridiculously refer to as a woman - cutting a dogs nuts off doesn't make it a bitch it makes it a dog with no nuts. I mean, christ, this thing looks like Desperate Dan, only more butch.
1 to 17 of 17
