He's done it again! Pregnant man expe...

He's done it again! Pregnant man expecting for second time.

There are 125 comments on the The Sydney Morning Herald story from Nov 13, 2008, titled He's done it again! Pregnant man expecting for second time.. In it, The Sydney Morning Herald reports that:

Thomas Beatie pictured with his wife Nancy, left, having an ultrasound, top right, and speaking to Oprah Winfrey, bottom right, in screen grabs taken from a preview of the interview for The Oprah Winfrey Show ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Sydney Morning Herald.

First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Since: Nov 08

Los Angeles, CA

#1 Jan 22, 2009
You've got to be kidding me... I don't even know where to start with how ridiculous and perverted this is. These two woman are confused and ill beyond belief. I hope they get help and someone has the guts to tell them the hard truth that what they are doing isn't right and the costs of making these decisions will be bared by their children. Makes me sick that we live in a country where people find this kind of behavior "acceptable"

Since: Sep 08

Irving, TX

#2 Jan 22, 2009
How wonderful his daughter will have a sibling to play with and share experiences with.

aks

Avon, IN

#3 Jan 22, 2009
(silence).........
Mickey

Macomb, IL

#4 Jan 22, 2009
I was just wondering where the baby will come out of? In addition to that how will he raise the child and will he tell her that he had her? Also with she be able to have a baby?

“I Support Equality”

Since: Jun 07

Beaverton, OR

#5 Jan 22, 2009
Mickey wrote:
I was just wondering where the baby will come out of? In addition to that how will he raise the child and will he tell her that he had her? Also with she be able to have a baby?
Your lack of knowledge of Biology is staggering.

Since: Nov 08

Los Angeles, CA

#6 Jan 23, 2009
Mickey wrote:
I was just wondering where the baby will come out of? In addition to that how will he raise the child and will he tell her that he had her? Also with she be able to have a baby?
"Thomas" never had a complete "sex change".... she's still technically a woman... she had the first baby naturally... will prolly do the same with the second.

Since: Nov 08

Los Angeles, CA

#7 Jan 23, 2009
Pgetty wrote:
<quoted text>
Your lack of knowledge of Biology is staggering.
Actually.. it's a perfectly acceptable question... most of the news reports don't mention the fact that "thomas" still has all of her reproductive organs including her vagina and uterus.. I myself was convused about how the baby was going to be born until I finally came across an informative article that mentioned that she never had a complete phaloplasty.

Since: Sep 08

Irving, TX

#8 Jan 23, 2009
Matthew Marcus wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually.. it's a perfectly acceptable question... most of the news reports don't mention the fact that "thomas" still has all of her reproductive organs including her vagina and uterus.. I myself was convused about how the baby was going to be born until I finally came across an informative article that mentioned that she never had a complete phaloplasty.
Most FTM's do not have a pholoplasty due to the fact that they have a high failure rate, extremely expensive and extremely risky and most have poor results and most have complications from this surgery. This is why it is not legally required and why most opt not to have this surgery done.

However, this is not the case for MTF, their surgeries have a high success rate, not as expensive, less complications and risks. In most states this surgery is legally required along with a long list of other requirements to become legally female.

Thomas has met all the legally required surgeries to be legally classified as a male. In most states they do not require FTM's to remove their reproductive organs to be legally male or to have a phaloplasty.

Since: Nov 08

Los Angeles, CA

#9 Jan 23, 2009
Arin wrote:
<quoted text>
Most FTM's do not have a pholoplasty due to the fact that they have a high failure rate, extremely expensive and extremely risky and most have poor results and most have complications from this surgery. This is why it is not legally required and why most opt not to have this surgery done.
However, this is not the case for MTF, their surgeries have a high success rate, not as expensive, less complications and risks. In most states this surgery is legally required along with a long list of other requirements to become legally female.
Thomas has met all the legally required surgeries to be legally classified as a male. In most states they do not require FTM's to remove their reproductive organs to be legally male or to have a phaloplasty.
Ok.. and explain again how a human being with a uterus, ovaries, a vagina, clitoris, and a desire to carry for 9 mo and give birth naturally to a child is somehow classified as a "man" again??? Legally or not... She's a woman... plain and simple. woman. I've seen plenty of flat-chested women, and even ones with facial hair.. guess what? They're still women... surprise!

Since: Sep 08

Irving, TX

#10 Jan 23, 2009
Thomas chose to keep his female organs, because he wanted to have a bio child. Most individuals and couples want that be able to have a bio child also.

He may choose after having his children to have them removed later. That remains to be seen. He is still however male. We can agree to disagree on that one. It is an individual choice to decide wether to remove your reproductive organs or not. He has just as much right to have a child as anyone else.

For me having them removed is my choice, but I do not expect everyone to choose the same thing.

When you get into the realm of a man that has female reproductive organs you are stepping into other areas: Every human beings right given at birth to procreate and the desire to give birth to offspring, it is part of human nature. FTM's that have transitioned and chosen to keep their reproductive organs or still in transition and intersexed individuals born with ambiguous or gender variant traits. There are many intersexed individuals that would fit this criteria and that are medically considered to be biologically male due to DNA and other biological traits.

If you want to better understand these concepts,look at journals of medicine and science,official websites that represent each group, news articles and college level discussions on the subject and see for yourself.



It is rude and disrespectful of you to refer to him and a she. I imagine that you don't care and that is your choice. However, the next time that you tell someone that you feel sorry for the children, just remember your words Sir and how you treat others. Words hurt too! You don't have to agree or approve to be a tolerant person. If you morally don't agree that is fine and your choice. If, you feel the need to pray for them, go for it. Prayer never hurt anyone.



GobSmacked

Australia

#11 Jan 23, 2009
It is rude and disrespectful that we should be asked to accept this absurdity.
There is no "Freak of Nature" here.
Nature had nothing to do with it.
Borg

New Britain, CT

#12 Jan 24, 2009
I know, it's even ruder to have to accept their freakish behavior and lifestyle. It's also rude for them to shove it down our faces. I think they need to have their kids taken away from them and they need to be in the psych ward for life.

Since: Jan 09

Australia

#13 Jan 25, 2009
I'm amazed you yanks haven't run Oprah Winfrey out of town by now.
The amount of times you have let her force this drivel down your throats is just incredible.
let boys be boys

United States

#14 Jan 25, 2009
Yea, this si ridiculous. As Arin pointed out it is a brith given right to procreate... that means that guys have male organs and participate in giving birth but the woman actually gives the birth. This is not a born right. Her born right would be to be the woman she is and give birth. I am a man and I do not have the right to give birth, but I am stisfied by helping to give life. Arin you are just an idiot!
wherezmyrites

United States

#15 Jan 25, 2009
Do you know that Obama is going to try to make it a hate crime in the future for doctors to decline such patients as these. In the article it said that nine doctors refused to impregnante the freak by choice Thomas/Tracy. If Obama has his way any doctor not willing to help will be accused of a hate crime and possible lose his or her liscence. Now where are our rights on this. In the oath that doctors take they promise to use proper health practices etc. This is not a life or death situation. This is the real life nightmare of two people who, by bringing a child into this world, are actually ruining it!
John

Wilburton, PA

#16 Jan 25, 2009
Arin wrote:
It is rude and disrespectful of you to refer to him
freak. it. mental case wiedo Lol sickie
LIBERALS EAT SHIET

Luzerne, PA

#18 Jan 25, 2009
just shoot the freak.

Since: Nov 08

Los Angeles, CA

#19 Jan 27, 2009
Arin wrote:
Thomas chose to keep his female organs, because he wanted to have a bio child. Most individuals and couples want that be able to have a bio child also.
He may choose after having his children to have them removed later. That remains to be seen. He is still however male. We can agree to disagree on that one. It is an individual choice to decide wether to remove your reproductive organs or not. He has just as much right to have a child as anyone else.
For me having them removed is my choice, but I do not expect everyone to choose the same thing.
When you get into the realm of a man that has female reproductive organs you are stepping into other areas: Every human beings right given at birth to procreate and the desire to give birth to offspring, it is part of human nature. FTM's that have transitioned and chosen to keep their reproductive organs or still in transition and intersexed individuals born with ambiguous or gender variant traits. There are many intersexed individuals that would fit this criteria and that are medically considered to be biologically male due to DNA and other biological traits.
If you want to better understand these concepts,look at journals of medicine and science,official websites that represent each group, news articles and college level discussions on the subject and see for yourself.
It is rude and disrespectful of you to refer to him and a she. I imagine that you don't care and that is your choice. However, the next time that you tell someone that you feel sorry for the children, just remember your words Sir and how you treat others. Words hurt too! You don't have to agree or approve to be a tolerant person. If you morally don't agree that is fine and your choice. If, you feel the need to pray for them, go for it. Prayer never hurt anyone.
Raising a child in a home with absolutely no clear definition of even the slightest guidance of gender roles or morality is hurtful.. Period. Your complete post is filled with confusion and misunderstanding. Nothing you said can be accepted as a truth or an un-truth for that matter. Immoral lifestyles thrive on this relativistic world-view. A world where anything goes as long as an individual "feels good" about it. Go ahead living your life in the confused fog of your own identity crisis. In the meantime I'll pray for you and for "thomas" and her "family". No, I will not call her a "he" because to do so would be a lie. Not only to those who read and contribute to this board, but also to herself and the poor children who are facing lives full of confusion and a lack of guidance.

Since: Nov 08

Los Angeles, CA

#20 Jan 27, 2009
KenOath wrote:
I'm amazed you yanks haven't run Oprah Winfrey out of town by now.
The amount of times you have let her force this drivel down your throats is just incredible.
Fortunately (unfortunately?) this is what free speech is all about in the United States. Too bad the rule doesn't go both ways. The second you try to point out that you don't agree with someone's lifestyle and that you find it morally repugnant and try to voice your opinion that exposing children to such a lifestyle is not only wrong but hurtful and dangerous, you're labeled as a "bigot" or a "hater". It's the biggest double standard of our day.

Since: Nov 08

Los Angeles, CA

#21 Jan 27, 2009
wherezmyrites wrote:
Do you know that Obama is going to try to make it a hate crime in the future for doctors to decline such patients as these. In the article it said that nine doctors refused to impregnante the freak by choice Thomas/Tracy. If Obama has his way any doctor not willing to help will be accused of a hate crime and possible lose his or her liscence. Now where are our rights on this. In the oath that doctors take they promise to use proper health practices etc. This is not a life or death situation. This is the real life nightmare of two people who, by bringing a child into this world, are actually ruining it!
Do you have a link to something that states the President's intentions on this topic? I wouldn't put it past him, but I'm surprised that I haven't heard this so I was wondering if you had any kind of references.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Transgender Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Police need more training on hate crime, says A... 1 hr fallen angel 26
News A Monument to Gay and Transgender People Is Com... 2 hr 16 TEEN SHOTS chi... 6
News California AG bans state travel to Texas, 3 oth... 2 hr Frankie Rizzo 100
News Thanks to Trumpa s vague order, LGBT activists ... 2 hr Rick Perry s Closet 16
News Serbia gays say election of gay PM to be historic 4 hr Gremlin 4
News Poll: Younger Republicans more liberal on immig... 14 hr The Troll Stopper 5
News Transgender Woman Launches Facebook Site '... 22 hr DCrohns Farts 16
More from around the web