A quote that caught my eye during hte readings about Thomas Beatie was this: "Partly a carnival sideshow and partly a glimpse at shifting sexual tectonics, his image and story powered past traditional definitions of gender"
My question is: How much of the media and cultural fixation upon Thomas Beatie was due to his exotic, or even "freakish" nature? He is not a bearded lady or some other carnival fixture, yet I feel that, despite our growing understanding of gender, Beatie's story was still treated in somewhat the same way. To what extent do you think this attitude affected coverage of Thomas Beatie and what does it reflect about our cultural understanding of transgender issues?
Thomas Beatie claims that he is a man, just one with the ability to carry a child. However, he never decided to change his reproductive organs, nor receive sexual organ surgery. How much ambiguity is there in his claims if he wants to be a male but keeps female organs? Can he be considered a man if his anatomy doesn't follow traditional definitions of being a male versus a female? And, as written in "Labor of Love," his body regulated back to menstrual cycles a mere four months after he stopped taking testosterone injections. To what extent does his quick and natural reversion back to womanhood demonstrate his true gender?
I remember reading these articles about Thomas Beatie when this was happening in 2008. It was definitely a shock to me to see pictures of a man with a fully pregnant stomach. I don't mean this in a negative way but it actually creeped me out a litte bit, just because it defies the norm of what I am used to. I am not at all against the situation or the pregnancy, and I am happy it worked out for Thomas and his wife. Yet I can't help look at the picture and cringe. Is it natural instinct for a human to feel this way because of how we are raised in society? There are different levels of acceptance, of course. For explain when Thomas's brother said "It's a good thing that happened. Who knows what kind of monster it would have been" When his first pregnancy didn't work out. Yet is it wrong to feel uncomfortable with this situation? I just feel it does seem unnatural and odd, which is why it looks strange. Did anyone else feel this way? I feel that humans are used to seeing a woman pregnant, so is it human nature, or societal upbringings, or both, which make me and others feel strange about seeing this man pregnant?
The comment Thomas's brother made ("It's a good thing that happened. Who knows what kind of monster it would have been?") after Thomas's first failed pregnancy interestingly echoes the text we read in our Gender class, "Portrait of a Monster." Although we have certainly progressed as a society since those earlier times in terms of our tolerance of breaking gender barriers, have we also not retained some of that fear of the unsettling consequences resulting from these new/unconventional practices? Will this inherent human discomfort stay with us, despite our growing tolerance for those who stray from societal norms? To what extent do we separate our gut feeling of "This is not normal and is therefore strange" from the open-mindedness we have come to possess (or is this "gut feeling" of "disgust" simply a product of society itself?) And finally, is the only way we could ever *truly* and *completely* embrace situations like Thomas Beatties' (regardless of how tolerant we may be) is if we experience the same situations ourselves? These are questions I cannot help but think about when evaluating our responses to the pregnant-man case.
As I read the article "Labor of Love" I was shocked by the reactions of the various people Thomas Beatie encountered. "His own brother, says, Thomas, told him his baby would be a monster." The doctor told him "that people would try to kill my baby because it is an abomination." These reactions are extremely surprising considering our society. My question is how come some are readily able to accept things which are out of the norm while others have a hard time doing the same? What affects our tolerance of different things, religion, culture, family, background? I used to believe that such things were the reason we behaved and acted certain ways, however, Thomas and his brother who were raised in the same family with the same background have such differing opinions. So what really influences our opinions and acceptance or non acceptance?
In reading the articles, I found it slightly odd that Beatie never underwent any kind of genital reconstruction and that the question of 'why not?' was never addressed. He mentioned briefly that he wanted to be able to freeze his eggs in hopes of having a child one day, but that can happen before any reconstructive surgery. I guess I just have always associated the desire to bare a child as a specifically female thought, since they are the ones who can. It would be interesting to know what Beatie defines as a man, only because he so strongly identifies himself as a man. This brings up the question of how humans define themselves as one gender or another. What makes someone identify with their chosen or given gender? What makes people 'feel' more like one gender than the other? Do people feel one way or another because of social history or is gender identification something specific in a person's DNA?
In the New York Times article, it said,"Gender surgery is not what defines gender . . . " So I was thinking if this physical change does not define gender why are many transgenders so eager to have sex-change operations. Thomas Beatie took hormones to grow a beard and have other physical features of a man, but in the end he decided to keep his ovaries. If physical traits do not define gender, why did Thomas Beatie take hormones to resemble a man?
These are two quotes that really caught my attention from the articles on Beatie's pregnancy:
"This child won't be born thinking, 'My parents are weird and I'm in this terrible situation.' She's not going to feel like there's anything wrong with her parents unless society tell her that there is. so in a way, it really comes down to us. Is it going to be a big deal in this child's life? It remains to be seen." Josephine Johnston (Bioethicist, Hastings Center)
Referring to the birth of Susan Beatie, "the blessed event will mark both a personal milestone and wondrous crossroads in the evolution of American pop culture."
These quotes made me upset at out society. The first quote made me upset because I agree with Johnston, and i find it unfair that the child, and other children in her situation, might undergo bullying and discrimination only because our society does not know how to cope with change and doesn't race their youth with the idea of tolerance.
The second quote upset me because I thought, "Is this really all this is to the American society, 'a crossroads in the evolution of American pop culture'?" I think it's this type of thinking that restricts our society from taking these matters seriously and adapting to them properly as part of our history and culture.
So my question is, will Beatie's pregnancy benefit a male pregnancy movement, or will our society's lack of seriousness and tolerance cause this matter to go back down into sublimity?
Throughout his life, Thomas Beatie, born as Tracy Lagondino, has struggled with how to portray his gender identity and ultimately reject his female persona. Beatie went from being born a biological female, to a model, then a tomboy, then had testosterone injections and surgery, became legally male, became pregnant, gave birth, and then took on the role of the father of his baby. In spite of all this transgender conflict, he feels “stable and confident being the man that [he is].” Traditionally, we think of gender as connected to biological sex and characterized by biological traits such as reproductive organs, chromosomes, and hormones as well as external physical features like hair and clothing and how feminine/masculine someone seems like. However, people like Thomas Beatie are redefining what it means to be a man or woman. He explains his pregnancy by stating that “wanting to have a biological child is neither a male nor female desire, but a human desire.” Transgender people say they feel like they are trapped inside a body of the opposite sex. Is gender more of a ‘physical’, external trait that usually corresponds to one’s biological sex or an internal identity that persists despite one’s biological sex and gender norms?
I feel as if society is still not prepared for male pregnancies (even labeling it as “male pregnancies” feels much like an understatement). In some point of our lives, we have all been trained by society into thinking that biological factors determine our gender. Even though more people have seemed to challenge that idea, our society still seems to value the importance of raising a traditional family—that is, a family with a mom and a dad. Although I respect Beatie in his decision in becoming a father, I do not completely agree with his whole idea of wanting to convince people of changing their beliefs or their views. Both Beatie and his wife understood the consequences of breaking the societal norm of family; therefore it should not have been a complete shock to them when they were facing various criticisms. I feel as if Beatie was trying to expedite the process of change; he wished for society to accept this new shift in gender without understanding that society, itself, was not ready. This got me thinking: What prevents society from accepting such changes? What are the factors behind it, and why is it so hard to break tradition?
When reading about Thomas Beatie, I was struck by quotes from people who would look at headlines about the "pregnant man" and then say that it was really just a woman. It seems that people were drawn in by the title, but once they found out that the man was transgender, they were quick to say it was a pregnant woman just become he still had female reproductive parts. These thoughts led me to a pretty open ended and debatable question: What is it that defines Thomas Beatie, or anyone, as a man? He is legally male and thinks of himself as male but has female reproductive parts.
Of all the readings assigned, I was most interested in Thomas Beatie's own article. There is no doubt that the "Pregnant Man" was hot topic in the media back in 2008, when the news debuted. In the media craze, Thomas' own perspective seemed to be lost in news articles as the authors imposed either their own or other "qualified people"s perspective onto the story. In his article, Thomas Beatie wrote "Despite the fact that my belly is growing with a new life inside me, I am stable and confident in being the man that I am." This quote answers my questions about his personal gender orientation during the pregancy. But I wonder if this change in traditional sex roles within his relationship with his wife changes anything in the gender roles within the marriage. To further the question, if and how does sex change affect one's gender role in a relationship?
As I was reading the articles, I noticed a major difference between the "Labor of Love" article and the other articles. The media's articles address Beatie's uniqueness a lot more than Beatie himself. In Thomas Beatie's article, he answers the common questions about his pregnancy but he does not address the idea that his story is not a common story of a father. However, I feel the media overcompensated for this. This led me to think: What effect does the media's attempt to draw in readers have on their portrayal of Thomas Beatie as being different from a regular father?
I was by far more intrigued in the article "Labor of Love", the first person story of Thomas Beatie and his pregnancy. One part that really struck me was, "Despite the fact that my belly is growing with a new life inside me, I am stable and cofident being the man that I am. In a technical sense I see myself as my own surrogate, though my gender identity as male is constant." Through this, he describes what he thinks is his own situation. If this is the gender he chooses to be, then how would society's reaction be different when it came to a woman donating sperm? Would there be as much coverage if there is no physical evidence (ie. a belly holding a child)? Grace Huang
Adding on to Diana's comment, it's interesting how Beatie repeatedly acknowledges his masculinity: "I'm just the typical father." But that statement itself is just made to stir controversy since obviously he is not your typical father - men do not carry female parts, and using them would make Beatie's assertions, by our culture, hypocritical. What exactly is Beatie trying to accomplish? Just to give birth to a child, oh so innocently as he proclaimed, or attract publicity and set the stage for an entry into the lucrative world of entertainment?
How much of our opinions on this topic is based on social conditioning a.k.a. couture, versus our own objective reasoning, obtained knowledge, and/or personal experience?
And why are we all so judgmental when it comes to analyzing traditional gender roles, including pregnancy? (I am personally guilty of this!)
Since I am no expert on the subject such as male pregnancy, or in any position to freely elaborate on the topic that is so unfamiliar to me, I wanted to do more research to learn how/what transexual people think, feel, and react on Thomas Beatie's situation and the male pregnancy issue. I wanted to share a post by one of the transexual bloggers:
"…Imperfect systems are often fixed through publicity. Moral disagreemnts aside, adequate medical care needs to be available for these situations, and more doctors should be ready. Not providing care won't stop TS people from having their own children (as odd as I personally find it).
Now, as to biology, and the "gays"... Trans issues are not the same as gay issues, and for the most part, how we live in society is what determines our gender, not biology. TS people walk among you, and they are your fellow men and women, and your friends, whether you know it or not. They are not in disguise, they are living honestly.
There's no such thing as a "real" man or woman -- start playing those games and many non-trans people would be thrown to the wolves. Additionally, do you *really* want to draw the line at genitals? If so, then one in every 250 births is neither male nor female-- that's the rate of intersex births. All of this is to say, it is disrespectful to call people words they don't identify with. The only reason to do is because their self definition somehow threatens your own. Why not try separating the two?"
A quote that caught my eye during hte readings about Thomas Beatie was this: "Partly a carnival sideshow and partly a glimpse at shifting sexual tectonics, his image and story powered past traditional definitions of gender"
ReplyDeleteMy question is: How much of the media and cultural fixation upon Thomas Beatie was due to his exotic, or even "freakish" nature? He is not a bearded lady or some other carnival fixture, yet I feel that, despite our growing understanding of gender, Beatie's story was still treated in somewhat the same way. To what extent do you think this attitude affected coverage of Thomas Beatie and what does it reflect about our cultural understanding of transgender issues?
Thomas Beatie claims that he is a man, just one with the ability to carry a child. However, he never decided to change his reproductive organs, nor receive sexual organ surgery. How much ambiguity is there in his claims if he wants to be a male but keeps female organs? Can he be considered a man if his anatomy doesn't follow traditional definitions of being a male versus a female? And, as written in "Labor of Love," his body regulated back to menstrual cycles a mere four months after he stopped taking testosterone injections. To what extent does his quick and natural reversion back to womanhood demonstrate his true gender?
ReplyDeleteI remember reading these articles about Thomas Beatie when this was happening in 2008. It was definitely a shock to me to see pictures of a man with a fully pregnant stomach. I don't mean this in a negative way but it actually creeped me out a litte bit, just because it defies the norm of what I am used to. I am not at all against the situation or the pregnancy, and I am happy it worked out for Thomas and his wife. Yet I can't help look at the picture and cringe. Is it natural instinct for a human to feel this way because of how we are raised in society? There are different levels of acceptance, of course. For explain when Thomas's brother said "It's a good thing that happened. Who knows what kind of monster it would have been" When his first pregnancy didn't work out. Yet is it wrong to feel uncomfortable with this situation? I just feel it does seem unnatural and odd, which is why it looks strange. Did anyone else feel this way? I feel that humans are used to seeing a woman pregnant, so is it human nature, or societal upbringings, or both, which make me and others feel strange about seeing this man pregnant?
ReplyDeleteThe comment Thomas's brother made ("It's a good thing that happened. Who knows what kind of monster it would have been?") after Thomas's first failed pregnancy interestingly echoes the text we read in our Gender class, "Portrait of a Monster." Although we have certainly progressed as a society since those earlier times in terms of our tolerance of breaking gender barriers, have we also not retained some of that fear of the unsettling consequences resulting from these new/unconventional practices? Will this inherent human discomfort stay with us, despite our growing tolerance for those who stray from societal norms? To what extent do we separate our gut feeling of "This is not normal and is therefore strange" from the open-mindedness we have come to possess (or is this "gut feeling" of "disgust" simply a product of society itself?) And finally, is the only way we could ever *truly* and *completely* embrace situations like Thomas Beatties' (regardless of how tolerant we may be) is if we experience the same situations ourselves? These are questions I cannot help but think about when evaluating our responses to the pregnant-man case.
ReplyDeleteAs I read the article "Labor of Love" I was shocked by the reactions of the various people Thomas Beatie encountered. "His own brother, says, Thomas, told him his baby would be a monster." The doctor told him "that people would try to kill my baby because it is an abomination." These reactions are extremely surprising considering our society. My question is how come some are readily able to accept things which are out of the norm while others have a hard time doing the same? What affects our tolerance of different things, religion, culture, family, background? I used to believe that such things were the reason we behaved and acted certain ways, however, Thomas and his brother who were raised in the same family with the same background have such differing opinions. So what really influences our opinions and acceptance or non acceptance?
ReplyDeleteIn reading the articles, I found it slightly odd that Beatie never underwent any kind of genital reconstruction and that the question of 'why not?' was never addressed. He mentioned briefly that he wanted to be able to freeze his eggs in hopes of having a child one day, but that can happen before any reconstructive surgery. I guess I just have always associated the desire to bare a child as a specifically female thought, since they are the ones who can. It would be interesting to know what Beatie defines as a man, only because he so strongly identifies himself as a man. This brings up the question of how humans define themselves as one gender or another. What makes someone identify with their chosen or given gender? What makes people 'feel' more like one gender than the other? Do people feel one way or another because of social history or is gender identification something specific in a person's DNA?
ReplyDeleteIn the New York Times article, it said,"Gender surgery is not what defines gender . . . " So I was thinking if this physical change does not define gender why are many transgenders so eager to have sex-change operations. Thomas Beatie took hormones to grow a beard and have other physical features of a man, but in the end he decided to keep his ovaries. If physical traits do not define gender, why did Thomas Beatie take hormones to resemble a man?
ReplyDeleteThese are two quotes that really caught my attention from the articles on Beatie's pregnancy:
ReplyDelete"This child won't be born thinking, 'My parents are weird and I'm in this terrible situation.' She's not going to feel like there's anything wrong with her parents unless society tell her that there is. so in a way, it really comes down to us. Is it going to be a big deal in this child's life? It remains to be seen." Josephine Johnston (Bioethicist, Hastings Center)
Referring to the birth of Susan Beatie, "the blessed event will mark both a personal milestone and wondrous crossroads in the evolution of American pop culture."
These quotes made me upset at out society. The first quote made me upset because I agree with Johnston, and i find it unfair that the child, and other children in her situation, might undergo bullying and discrimination only because our society does not know how to cope with change and doesn't race their youth with the idea of tolerance.
The second quote upset me because I thought, "Is this really all this is to the American society, 'a crossroads in the evolution of American pop culture'?" I think it's this type of thinking that restricts our society from taking these matters seriously and adapting to them properly as part of our history and culture.
So my question is, will Beatie's pregnancy benefit a male pregnancy movement, or will our society's lack of seriousness and tolerance cause this matter to go back down into sublimity?
Throughout his life, Thomas Beatie, born as Tracy Lagondino, has struggled with how to portray his gender identity and ultimately reject his female persona. Beatie went from being born a biological female, to a model, then a tomboy, then had testosterone injections and surgery, became legally male, became pregnant, gave birth, and then took on the role of the father of his baby. In spite of all this transgender conflict, he feels “stable and confident being the man that [he is].” Traditionally, we think of gender as connected to biological sex and characterized by biological traits such as reproductive organs, chromosomes, and hormones as well as external physical features like hair and clothing and how feminine/masculine someone seems like. However, people like Thomas Beatie are redefining what it means to be a man or woman. He explains his pregnancy by stating that “wanting to have a biological child is neither a male nor female desire, but a human desire.” Transgender people say they feel like they are trapped inside a body of the opposite sex. Is gender more of a ‘physical’, external trait that usually corresponds to one’s biological sex or an internal identity that persists despite one’s biological sex and gender norms?
ReplyDeleteI feel as if society is still not prepared for male pregnancies (even labeling it as “male pregnancies” feels much like an understatement). In some point of our lives, we have all been trained by society into thinking that biological factors determine our gender. Even though more people have seemed to challenge that idea, our society still seems to value the importance of raising a traditional family—that is, a family with a mom and a dad. Although I respect Beatie in his decision in becoming a father, I do not completely agree with his whole idea of wanting to convince people of changing their beliefs or their views. Both Beatie and his wife understood the consequences of breaking the societal norm of family; therefore it should not have been a complete shock to them when they were facing various criticisms. I feel as if Beatie was trying to expedite the process of change; he wished for society to accept this new shift in gender without understanding that society, itself, was not ready. This got me thinking: What prevents society from accepting such changes? What are the factors behind it, and why is it so hard to break tradition?
ReplyDeleteWhen reading about Thomas Beatie, I was struck by quotes from people who would look at headlines about the "pregnant man" and then say that it was really just a woman. It seems that people were drawn in by the title, but once they found out that the man was transgender, they were quick to say it was a pregnant woman just become he still had female reproductive parts. These thoughts led me to a pretty open ended and debatable question: What is it that defines Thomas Beatie, or anyone, as a man? He is legally male and thinks of himself as male but has female reproductive parts.
ReplyDeleteOf all the readings assigned, I was most interested in Thomas Beatie's own article. There is no doubt that the "Pregnant Man" was hot topic in the media back in 2008, when the news debuted. In the media craze, Thomas' own perspective seemed to be lost in news articles as the authors imposed either their own or other "qualified people"s perspective onto the story. In his article, Thomas Beatie wrote "Despite the fact that my belly is growing with a new life inside me, I am stable and confident in being the man that I am." This quote answers my questions about his personal gender orientation during the pregancy. But I wonder if this change in traditional sex roles within his relationship with his wife changes anything in the gender roles within the marriage. To further the question, if and how does sex change affect one's gender role in a relationship?
ReplyDeleteAs I was reading the articles, I noticed a major difference between the "Labor of Love" article and the other articles. The media's articles address Beatie's uniqueness a lot more than Beatie himself. In Thomas Beatie's article, he answers the common questions about his pregnancy but he does not address the idea that his story is not a common story of a father. However, I feel the media overcompensated for this. This led me to think: What effect does the media's attempt to draw in readers have on their portrayal of Thomas Beatie as being different from a regular father?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI was by far more intrigued in the article "Labor of Love", the first person story of Thomas Beatie and his pregnancy. One part that really struck me was, "Despite the fact that my belly is growing with a new life inside me, I am stable and cofident being the man that I am. In a technical sense I see myself as my own surrogate, though my gender identity as male is constant." Through this, he describes what he thinks is his own situation. If this is the gender he chooses to be, then how would society's reaction be different when it came to a woman donating sperm? Would there be as much coverage if there is no physical evidence (ie. a belly holding a child)? Grace Huang
ReplyDeleteAdding on to Diana's comment, it's interesting how Beatie repeatedly acknowledges his masculinity: "I'm just the typical father." But that statement itself is just made to stir controversy since obviously he is not your typical father - men do not carry female parts, and using them would make Beatie's assertions, by our culture, hypocritical. What exactly is Beatie trying to accomplish? Just to give birth to a child, oh so innocently as he proclaimed, or attract publicity and set the stage for an entry into the lucrative world of entertainment?
ReplyDeleteHow much of our opinions on this topic is based on social conditioning a.k.a. couture, versus our own objective reasoning, obtained knowledge, and/or personal experience?
ReplyDeleteAnd why are we all so judgmental when it comes to analyzing traditional gender roles, including pregnancy? (I am personally guilty of this!)
Since I am no expert on the subject such as male pregnancy, or in any position to freely elaborate on the topic that is so unfamiliar to me, I wanted to do more research to learn how/what transexual people think, feel, and react on Thomas Beatie's situation and the male pregnancy issue. I wanted to share a post by one of the transexual bloggers:
"…Imperfect systems are often fixed through publicity. Moral disagreemnts aside, adequate medical care needs to be available for these situations, and more doctors should be ready. Not providing care won't stop TS people from having their own children (as odd as I personally find it).
Now, as to biology, and the "gays"... Trans issues are not the same as gay issues, and for the most part, how we live in society is what determines our gender, not biology. TS people walk among you, and they are your fellow men and women, and your friends, whether you know it or not. They are not in disguise, they are living honestly.
There's no such thing as a "real" man or woman -- start playing those games and many non-trans people would be thrown to the wolves. Additionally, do you *really* want to draw the line at genitals? If so, then one in every 250 births is neither male nor female-- that's the rate of intersex births. All of this is to say, it is disrespectful to call people words they don't identify with. The only reason to do is because their self definition somehow threatens your own. Why not try separating the two?"