Man pregnant

oregon man pregnant, thomas beatie, oregon man says he s pregnant, oregon man claims he s pregnant, man pregnant, the advocate, thomas beatie, thomas beattie, man pregnant, oregon man pregnant, thomas beattie pregnant

There is a disturbing story in today’s Telegraph, with a link to a Los Angeles magazine that first published the story, about a so-called “transgender male” who is, it seems, twenty two weeks pregnant. It seems that someone who was to all intents and purposes born a woman decided that she wanted to become a man, and so undertook hormone treatment and “chest reconstruction” and no more– which is, it seems, enough in America to make her “legally male” and thus able to marry another woman.

The wife in this partnership is unable to have children, so the legal male is now pregnant with their daughter, using donated sperm. For me, this raises all sorts of questions, the first being: what is it that makes someone male or female? Is it merely what is going on in your head, or is it more than that? This “man”, if such we must regard her, has, as seems to be the case with women who go in for sex changes, a beard, and yet is about to become a mother – for such is the word for someone who gives birth.

How will they explain things to their little girl, when she is born? Just what sort of perversion of medicine is it, when someone can be what I would regard as a sort of hermaphrodite, and yet be allowed medical intervention to have a baby? How does the whole hormone thing work? As I understood the situation, once you started taking male hormones, you had to carry on – so how can this be, when the person is pregnant?

I must be getting old, because I regard all this as both hugely distasteful and downright wrong, and yet, I suppose, an inevitable consequence of people’s “rights” to choose everything from whether or not to have a baby – buy one from a surrogate if there are any problems - to their sex and sexuality. Once, I would have said only in America, but I suspect that we cannot be far behind. I suppose what I really think is this: if you choose to be gay, or to change sex, then that is all well and good, but you must live with the consequences of that decision. This means no babies, because it is not for nothing that the good Lord, or Nature, or however you choose to define it, has seen fit to organise things so that two of the same cannot produce offspring. I know that medical science is doing its very best to subvert any sort of natural selection and physical limits by way of reproduction, but who knows with what consequences? Perhaps someone might care to ask Mr Brown, whose embryo research bill is currently being debated, what he thinks of this sort of parental arrangement, because I fear it will be only a matter of time before such things are permitted here.

I do hope that this whole story is in fact a hoax perpetrated by the lesbian, gay and transgender community to shock the complacency of the moral and heterosexual majority – but these days, it seems that absolutely anything goes. Just because something is possible does not make it right, but it seems there is no-one left to tell us any more where a moral line should be drawn.

No comments: