If 'he' kept his internal organs and did not get a sex change, then he's still a woman (superficially or not). He can't from the outside look like a man w/o a penis.

What i don't understand is why couldn't they adopt, or get a surrogate? Doesn't this whole pregnancy thing negate the fact that this person wanted to be identified as a man.

To me, if you want to be identified as a man, then you should act like a man. Men don't get pregnant.

This still goes to show that women believe they still have the right to change their minds no matter what....and be right about it. :)

Won't happen...He had a mastectomy as part of the transistion.

I don't think I agree. I probably would refer to someone I knew in real life by whatever gender they asked me to mainly to be polite, but I don't know that taking hormones and maybe even having surgery really does change your sex in a way that the state should be obligated to recognize.

This "guy" is one example why. The state where he currently lives recognizes him as a man and he has a uterus and is pregnant. He's not a man by any sane standard, and I'm not sure they rest of us are obligated to play along because he thinks he feels like a man despite actually being biologically a women.

Is his "wife" unable to bear children? Did I miss that? Cause otherwise, why do this other than for the publicity.

eta - okay, found it. But still . . . I feel for this child. Poor thing will be famous for the rest of her life - for something she had nothing to do with.

From what I understood from the article, he did get gender reassignment surgery, however they left the internal organs, that is what I meant by superficially, he is a man.

Adopting is hard enough when you are simply gay, adoption agencies would make it nearly impossible for a transgendered person to adopt.

And the statement that men don't get pregnant, it isn't impossible biologically, theoretically a man could have an implanted pregnancy in the abdominal cavity, it would act like an ectopic pregnancy.

Ok, wait...so if he received a penis, how were they able to inseminate "him?" And i'm going to guess its going to have to be a c-section, then. They still could have gotten a surrogate.

I understand the need people have for children, but this is just crazy. I feel bad for this child and what he/she might have to go through.

ETA: your comment about abdominal pregnancy--could be true. But ectopic pregnancies 99% of the time don't survive and can be fatal to the "mother." I hope that no doctor would ever perform that on a true man.

Kstar,

I think for some of us, we just don't accept that biological sex is as mutable as the transgender advocacy community is telling us that it's supposed to be.

Just because a person is willing to take sex hormones and perhaps have surgery on his or her original genitals doesn't actually, in the eyes of some and maybe even many, really mean that the "transgendered" person is in any real sense the sex that he or she feels like he or she is in his or her head.

I think a lot of us are willing to go along with the idea that it seems nice and tolerant socially to pretend whatever the transgendered person wants us to and aren't going to freak out about which bathroom a person uses, but it doesn't really mean that we really accept it at any kind of deep level. We wouldn't set him or her up with family members to date or date him or her ourselves, for instance, because we don't really believe that they are really what they've been "reassigned" to.

Just like so many threads in this forum, there's a great South Park episode or two on this topic. I'm primarily thinking of one in which one of the kids gets racial reassignment surgery.

From my advanced molecular genetics classes that included molecular developmental and genetics:

Mostly all human zygotes (after the egg is fertilized by the sperm) before the 8 celled stage (~48 hours) prior to uterine implantation, is "non-sexual" having no sex organs. It is thought, but has not been proven, that a powerful genetic rearrangement occurs at some point causing one of the X chromosomes to become a Y chromosome. I think recently, they have found 1-2 genes that regulate that process and it is epigenetic.

It is testicular formation that makes a male. NOT penile formation. The genes that make the penis are on other chromosomes, not the sex chromosomes.

Even in completely impoverished, malnourished conditions, the segregation of gender at least as the genetic level is maintained. For the areas that there are gross births of pseudo-hermaphrodites, are areas that have chemical environmental hazards, namely lead or PCB's--really nasty crap where babies are born with cyclopia and 8 legs...

This woman-turned-man did not have her female insides surgically removed. She kept her ovaries, oviducts and uterus--the key organs genetically that mandate a female and is strongly regulated by estrogen and progesterone with the hypothalums-pituitary axis. Shutdown with testosterone will only cause facial hair growth or hirusitism, and some features of a man, smaller breast size, and thigh stature, with pelvic movement.

If anything, I would be concerned with fetal health, brain development and behavior as one grows up. If female, it might not be a big deal--except it's fugly... If male, I don't know his package may be limited...

I was really thinking about sex being pretty much set by the time you are born, but it's interesting to know what happens in utero in this regard.

Actually, very very few female-to-male transgenders have "bottom" surgery. Basically, "bottom surgery," which would involve a hysterectomy and reconstruction to create a penis, is both expensive and kind of useless (the resulting penis is usually only 2-3 inches long, and you still have to sit down to pee). So, chances are Tom has everything that other women have below the belt. Taking testosterone halted the periods and increased libido. So, once the hormone therapy ended, periods probably came back and it was possible to conceive.

I'm sorry, you just can't switch back whenever it's convenient for you. Isn't this why people going through gender reassignment go through years of therapy before a doctor signs the papers approving the actual surgeries?

Well wouldn't that negate the fact that Tom had gender reassignment surgery? (according to what kstar read) because from what i've learned about that type of surgery, it is a "bottom" surgery. Idk, i'm confused lol.

Exactly. In my opinion, this shemale (for a lack of a better term) is making a mockery of all the transgender people. Like i've said before, you choose to live as a man, you should act like a man. If you and your significant other want children, you should go through the same measures as barren couples do.

So (s)he will be able to give birth naturally? This is so strange...

he/she will be able to give birth "naturally". According to what I read, "he" has only had the upper reconstructive surgery (mastectomy) and hormone therapy. There has been no genital reconstructive surgery done, otherwise there would be no way to "get pregnant".

Female => Male gender transformation is so much more difficult that most times the genital component is not completed.

I have many many friends who are transgendered...and transexual at various stages of change. (you can be transgendered WITHOUT being transexual) I understand the reasons behind what he is doing, although I can't say I agree with doing it.

The way I understand it, apparently, the full gender reassingment surgery makes an extention at the clitoral region where it is the "most similar" in responsiveness that occurs in the male. all the female parts are removed: ovaries, oviducts and uterus. I do not think it is possible surgically to create a prostate, and insert the urinary tract through it, since it is a gland, so some how it must be bypassed.

The uterus has endometrium which is functionally different from spermatogonia producing cells from the scrotum from the testicles. So, it may be structurally and physically look similar, but not pathologically similar.

Sorry for the misspelling, but right now, I am inebriated...