Transgender man gives birth to baby boy. ‘Love is possible,’ he says. So is ‘being a loving family.’

[Dashinka 25,885]

22 hours ago, Teddy B said:

Did the words "Transgender Man" in the title throw you?

Is a transgendered man a biological woman?

[IAMX 3,055]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

Is a transgendered man a biological woman?

Nope. You can modify your biology with feelings.

 

Science is such a bigot.

[Teddy B 17,252]

5 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

The MDL is all about fake news, fake headlines, etc.  WaPo is one of the worst offenders.  Thank God we have other sources.

I agree, the way they tried to deceive everyone with this article is atrocious. It's a good thing we have a few watch dogs here on VJ to point this stuff out.

[Teddy B 17,252]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Is a transgendered man a biological woman?

If you don't know what the definition of "transgender" is, perhaps you shouldn't be posting in this thread.

 

Go here for help. https://www.merriam-webster.com/

[CaliCat 3,957]

12 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

If you don't know what the definition of "transgender" is, perhaps you shouldn't be posting in this thread.

 

Go here for help. https://www.merriam-webster.com/

[Dashinka 25,885]

1 hour ago, Teddy B said:

If you don't know what the definition of "transgender" is, perhaps you shouldn't be posting in this thread.

 

Go here for help. https://www.merriam-webster.com/

Ha Ha Ha.  I thought that definition was changing daily as they add more letters to the LGBTICQZZROLSKA organization.  How many genders are there today?  I suspect they need to alter the word to "multigendered", but you know the funny thing, biology.

 

[IAMX 3,055]

14 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Ha Ha Ha.  I thought that definition was changing daily as they add more letters to the LGBTICQZZROLSKA organization.  How many genders are there today?  I suspect they need to alter the word to "multigendered", but you know the funny thing, biology.

 

As many as a bored populace want to make up to feel special without accomplishing anything special.

 

 

 

"man"

 

Edited August 3, 2017 by IAMX

[bcking 3,157]

19 hours ago, IAMX said:

It's confusing for the left..

 

For those of us who understand even elementary biology, it's a pretty simple thing to discern.. there's two sex chromosomes (and only two), homogametic (XX, female), heterogametic (XY, male). That's it. Easy enough.

 

But this is a social construct, it's funny how we leave the premise of socially forcing others to adhere to subjective beliefs (vis-a-vis religion) but the left turn around and pull the same stupid stunts with things like this. Apparently the left today are excluded from the rules the left of yesteryear fought to change. Things have come full circle eh?

If it is so simple for you to discern then why did you say that WaPo was trying to "Hide it"? They report he was a transgender man at the very beginning. It is simple enough to discern that he is anatomically female. He wouldn't be a transgender man if he was anatomically male.

 

I also see nothing in the article to suggest anyone is calling it a "miracle". Your word, not theirs. They even mention that it has happened many times before. 

 

It is news worthy because the parents are willing to be so open about it, and (hopefully for the most part) aren't being subjected to ignorance. This thread notwithstanding of course.

[IAMX 3,055]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

If it is so simple for you to discern then why did you say that WaPo was trying to "Hide it"? They report he was a transgender man at the very beginning. It is simple enough to discern that he is anatomically female. He wouldn't be a transgender man if he was anatomically male.

 

I also see nothing in the article to suggest anyone is calling it a "miracle". Your word, not theirs. They even mention that it has happened many times before. 

 

It is news worthy because the parents are willing to be so open about it, and (hopefully for the most part) aren't being subjected to ignorance. This thread notwithstanding of course.

It's simple, they act as if this is some amazing feat that a female give birth. Despite the fact that its so run of the mill. It's part of this collaborative effort to give special treatment to those who identify as whatever else they want to identify as. Even though they did nothing special.

 

I also point out where in the article this occurs because its generally accepted that any intro to a piece provide encompassing details. If criticism of journalistic standards from pieces that identify as relays of information (instead of commentators on it i.e. pundits) offends you, you can always skip over the thread.

[smilesammich 10,727]

10 minutes ago, bcking said:

If it is so simple for you to discern then why did you say that WaPo was trying to "Hide it"? They report he was a transgender man at the very beginning. It is simple enough to discern that he is anatomically female. He wouldn't be a transgender man if he was anatomically male.

 

I also see nothing in the article to suggest anyone is calling it a "miracle". Your word, not theirs. They even mention that it has happened many times before. 

 

It is news worthy because the parents are willing to be so open about it, and (hopefully for the most part) aren't being subjected to ignorance. This thread notwithstanding of course.

it's all about narrative and any deviation from that narrative won't be acknowledged. the point here is not about openness or acceptance, it's about the left's intolerance and inability to "science" correctly. in all things, stick with bashing the left and you'll win big!

[Teddy B 17,252]

11 minutes ago, IAMX said:

It's simple, they act as if this is some amazing feat that a female give birth. Despite the fact that its so run of the mill. It's part of this collaborative effort to give special treatment to those who identify as whatever else they want to identify as. Even though they did nothing special.

 

I also point out where in the article this occurs because its generally accepted that any intro to a piece provide encompassing details. If criticism of journalistic standards from pieces that identify as relays of information (instead of commentators on it i.e. pundits) offends you, you can always skip over the thread.

The only one in this thread that's acting that way is you.

[bcking 3,157]

13 minutes ago, IAMX said:

It's simple, they act as if this is some amazing feat that a female give birth. Despite the fact that its so run of the mill. It's part of this collaborative effort to give special treatment to those who identify as whatever else they want to identify as. Even though they did nothing special.

Where do they state this is some amazing feat? Where are you getting your information regarding how it is "run of the mill" and "nothing special" from? Oh yah. the same article. So you are arguing that WaPo is trying to state this is amazing, while at the same time you are acknowledging that they are providing the info that suggests that it is commonplace? I think the point of the article has gone way over your head.

 

"Reese and Chaplow, perhaps more than anything else, want to make one thing clear: They are not the first. Far from it."

 

"A number of transgender men have gone through successful pregnancies in recent years — and throughout history, for that matter — some of them long after beginning hormone replacement therapy. In one well-known example, the Village Voice published a narrative about Matt Rice, a transgender man who conceived in 1999 through artificial insemination and gave birth to a baby boy. Other more recent pregnancies among transgender men have been well documented in media reports."

 

That doesn't seem to be the language of an article acting like this is "some amazing feat" that has never happened before.

 

They also quite adequately explain why this particular couple is newsworthy. I'll quote again:

 

"Their family’s story — and their willingness to go public with it — reflects a shift in public attitudes about pregnancy and parenting in transgender men as social stigmas have started to chip away and advocacy groups have campaigned for greater acceptance."

 

While the act has happened many times before, it is typically done quietly behind closed doors. That makes it harder for other people in the same situation to have support. This couple decided to be incredibly open, shared their story on social media and helped spread a message that this can be seen as normal and okay. That is what makes them particularly worthy of attention. 

 

13 minutes ago, IAMX said:

I also point out where in the article this occurs because its generally accepted that any intro to a piece provide encompassing details. If criticism of journalistic standards from pieces that identify as relays of information (instead of commentators on it i.e. pundits) offends you, you can always skip over the thread.

The title was pretty encompassing if you ask me. You wanted to know that the person was anatomically female but a transgender male? It's in the fricken title. 

 

"Transgender man gives birth to baby boy. ‘Love is possible,’ he says. So is ‘being a loving family."

 

As for the bit about how it is more commonplace than it seems, that is pretty appropriately in the middle of the article. This isn't a hardline news report, this is a "personal interest piece". Those tend to "tell a story" in order to draw people in. They aren't just providing facts and figures. They can do so, but that is typically done after an introduction that piques the readers interest.

 

This thread doesn't offend me. Not the right word. More a mixture of laughter and sadness.

Edited August 3, 2017 by bcking

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, Teddy B said:

The only one in this thread that's acting that way is you.

[IAMX 3,055]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

Where do they state this is some amazing feat? Where are you getting your information regarding how it is "run of the mill" and "nothing special" from? Oh yah. the same article. So you are arguing that WaPo is trying to state this is amazing, while at the same time you are acknowledging that they are providing the info that suggests that it is commonplace? I think the point of the article has gone way over your head.

 

"Reese and Chaplow, perhaps more than anything else, want to make one thing clear: They are not the first. Far from it."

 

"A number of transgender men have gone through successful pregnancies in recent years — and throughout history, for that matter — some of them long after beginning hormone replacement therapy. In one well-known example, the Village Voice published a narrative about Matt Rice, a transgender man who conceived in 1999 through artificial insemination and gave birth to a baby boy. Other more recent pregnancies among transgender men have been well documented in media reports."

 

That doesn't seem to be the language of an article acting like this is "some amazing feat" that has never happened before.

 

They also quite adequately explain why this particular couple is newsworthy. I'll quote again:

 

"Their family’s story — and their willingness to go public with it — reflects a shift in public attitudes about pregnancy and parenting in transgender men as social stigmas have started to chip away and advocacy groups have campaigned for greater acceptance."

 

While the act has happened many times before, it is typically done quietly behind closed doors. That makes it harder for other people in the same situation to have support. This couple decided to be incredibly open, shared their story on social media and helped spread a message that this can be seen as normal and okay. That is what makes them particularly worthy of attention. 

 

The title was pretty encompassing if you ask me. You wanted to know that the person was anatomically female but a transgender male? It's in the fricken title. 

 

"Transgender man gives birth to baby boy. ‘Love is possible,’ he says. So is ‘being a loving family."

 

As for the bit about how it is more commonplace than it seems, that is pretty appropriately in the middle of the article. This isn't a hardline news report, this is a "personal interest piece". Those tend to "tell a story" in order to draw people in. They aren't just providing facts and figures. They can do so, but that is typically done after an introduction that piques the readers interest.

 

This thread doesn't offend me. Not the right word. More a mixture of laughter and sadness.

"They act as if"

"Show me where they state"

 

I guess if you wish to invent your own criteria it would be impossible to satisfy your egregious demands.

 

There's nothing newsworthy about a female getting pregnant. Hence why they act as if this is some amazing feat, when in fact it boils down to simply:

 

- Having female biology

- Taking drugs that likely suppress ovulation such as birth control and other drugs

- Stopping taking them

- Getting pregnant

 

Woohoo?

 

The only stigma here is the conjured one, in which the writer feels compelled to act as if those who are transgender are stigmatized because of biology (hence the description of a normal process), when in fact the issue is the forceful attempts to compel others to recognize a 100% subjective belief. It's like reliving the imposition of religion all over again.

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, IAMX said:

"They act as if"

"Show me where they state"

 

I guess if you wish to invent your own criteria it would be impossible to satisfy your egregious demands.

 

There's nothing newsworthy about a female getting pregnant. Hence why they act as if this is some amazing feat, when in fact it boils down to simply:

 

- Having female biology

- Taking drugs that likely suppress ovulation such as birth control and other drugs

- Stopping taking them

- Getting pregnant

 

Woohoo?

 

The only stigma here is the conjured one, in which the writer feels compelled to act as if those who are transgender are stigmatized because of biology (hence the description of a normal process), when in fact the issue is the forceful attempts to compel others to recognize a 100% subjective belief. It's like reliving the imposition of religion all over again.

In what way or where do they act as if it is an amazing feat, while at the same time quoting how it is more common than people think and very similar to a regular woman coming off birth control?

 

Your step by step instructions are in the article that you claim act it is an amazing feat. They are clearly doing a really poor job of doing that then, since they clearly spell it out as you have done.

 

Also, I'm pretty sure I have not invented the criteria of "show me evidence for your claim". That goes back far before my time. If that is novel to you then...wow.

Edited August 3, 2017 by bcking