Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Trans man gives birth to second child

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Congratulations!

  2. Simon Murphy 10 Jun 2009, 12:21pm

    Congratulations.

    I hope he makes lots more money whoring his story out to whoever will buy it like he did with his 1st child.

    It was hilarious when he had his 1st child when he claimed that he was selling his story to the highest bidder in order to gain ‘acceptance’ (maybe I’m wrong but it doesn’t seem there is a huge desire among FTM’s to have biological children. )

    He didn’t seem to grasp the idea that selling intimate details of his personal life and his child’s personal life (when the child had not consented to that) means that his family will be harassed by the media for years to come.

    I hope the money is worth it.

  3. im in two minds about this guy. As a ftm myself im aware that i won’t have biological children or will not want to have biological children. But why should he be persecuted for his choice? However i still don’t understand why he sold the stories, he has made himself appear to be a bit of a freakshow. Not saying he is but thats how he has made himself appear

  4. Simon Murphy 10 Jun 2009, 1:49pm

    I am a big supporter of anyone’s right to have a child as well. However his man has said that before he announced he was pregnant no-one in his neighbourhood even knew he was born a woman.

    So he decides to announce to the world that he was born a woman; transitioned to a man and is now pregnant via People magazine; the Oprah Show and every news outlet who would pay him cash for his story.

    He’s a media whore – pure and simple. Regardless of his rights as a parent; one of his responsibilities as his children’s birth mother is to protect his children from unnecessary media instrusion into their lives. Exposing them (without their consent) to international media scrutiny is downright irresponsible and selfish and it achieves nothing for either the transsexual community or his family.

  5. He’s not a man she is a lesbian who is only wanting to make money.

  6. Simon Murphy 10 Jun 2009, 3:15pm

    Mentally I think he may be a man although physically he is obviously still a woman. It does seem strange that a FTM transexual would want to give birth to 2 children. I always thought that if you were a transexual then you identified as the opposite sex and that once transitioned the thought of reverting to your birth sex was an appalling idea.

    How widespread is it for FTM transexuals to give birth to children after they have transitioned?

  7. If he can still have children and has his female reproductive organs he is still a woman. Be one or the other please but calling him a man when he clearly is not (yet) is pushing it too far.

  8. It’s amazing to see how hostile the gay and trans community can be to one of their own. How about we show the guy some support rather than acting like the BNP and condeming him? We all need to stick together to beat the bigots, not join them!

  9. Good for him. I think it is great that he shared his story and made people realise that there are more ways to become a parent than as a conventional heterosexual married couple. It is actually a very interesting story that has caught the public imagination. I am sure the money will go on the children.

  10. tony and dandrew, you are not the gender-police he is the only one with a decision over what gender he is and he says he’s a man. disagree with his choice to have children- fine but to take away his right to self-define and you cross the line.

  11. Hear, hear, RMW! It disgusts me that some commenters on trans-orientated news stories on PinkNews.co.uk can be so insensitive and bigoted. THINK BEFORE YOU POST.

  12. Monkeychops 10 Jun 2009, 4:26pm

    Erm, is “he” actually not a woman? From what my biology teachers hinted, it would seem only women can give birth. If she’d had everything realigned and whatnot, fine, but the fact she has gone through pregnancy twice…..nah, not having it. I’m all for self-definition, but let’s be sensible, eh? Also, she hasn’t done any favours for trans-people who are fighting for acceptance. This is all one huge, selfish publicity stunt that will have negative repercussions on other trans people. Oh, and let’s not forget what this could do to the children who will probably grow up in a media circus.

  13. Simon Murphy 10 Jun 2009, 4:31pm

    He is a dreadfully irresponsible parent regardless of his gender.

    To use his children to gain publicity for himself or his cause is reckless, irresponsible and selfish.

    His children could have grown up in relative anonymity but thanks to this guy they will be subject to uninvited (by them anyway) media scrutiny all their lives.

    I’m not condemning him for having children. I’m condemning him for being a media whore who will pimp out his entire family for fame and money.

  14. Vicki Morley 10 Jun 2009, 6:01pm

    I think this is one of those stories that just illustrates how vast and diverse people’s views and identifications can be.

    An FTM transexual giving birth to two children is really unheard of, but that is how this person feels and it is what they want to do with their body and with their life. I think it’s really beautiful that they have the freedom and the ability to do so, and I don’t understand why people get so caught up in the politics.

  15. I think it’s great for Thomas and his wife.

    After misjudging what he thought the media’s response to his story would be with his first child, he has kept out of the limelight for this second one and there have been no photos and no interviews.

    It’s unfortunate that people, even among the PinkNews’ readership, have such a restrictive view of gender and are out there hell bent on proving that he is this or that based on whatever their opinion of biology is.

    I think people like Thomas do a great job for all of us showing us the variety of the human experience, lest we start to believe that we are little more than an army of clones.

  16. Boi Polloi 10 Jun 2009, 7:02pm

    First, I have to say to everyone above who calls him a “she”, you’re idiots. Take the time to actually consider what’s involved in being a transperson, and you’ll learn a majority of FtM transsexuals never undergo bottom surgery or have hysterectomies. The results of the surgery, in many cases, are severely substandard. Why would you go through with the surgery if you’re going to be stuck with substandard results?

    Now, as a transperson, I have to say a few things. I think it’s great that he’s having kids with his wife. The world needs more loving families. What I DON’T agree with is the media frenzy he’s built around himself. Transpeople don’t want to be seen as some kind of circus freakshow, and this isn’t helping matters any!

    Have all the babies you want, Thomas, but don’t make yourself a spokesperson for the trans community because of it. Seriously.

  17. AAAAH! He is not a trans man!!! He is a woman with a beard!! This is such a non story.

  18. This man has gone a long way in shwoing that gender is not just a function of the mind, it is what you are, no matter what you feel. Here is a man who activly changed his se. Yet, today, he is woman enough to bear children notwithstamding all the injected male hormones and organs. I mean, what could be more feminine than that? Show me a mum, and I’ll show you a woman!

  19. @ Simon Murphy

    Why do you have it in for transsexuals people today?

    People must understand trans people have the same desires for children and family as anybody. I just wonder how much the $100,000 cost for his reassignment surgery played in the decision to go public on this. Many trans people end up prostituting themselves one way or another in America so they can afford surgery.

  20. Monkeychops 11 Jun 2009, 7:32am

    Clearly a lot of divided opinion here. Now for all those bleating on about how Thomas is not a “she”, well one thing is certain is that we aren’t talking about a “he”. The terms he and she are based on biology not psychology, so maybe you guys need to find new pronouns to more effectively describe trans people in all their forms. Now get to work….

  21. Simon Murphy 11 Jun 2009, 10:59am

    #18: Annon: You say: “I just wonder how much the $100,000 cost for his reassignment surgery played in the decision to go public on this. Many trans people end up prostituting themselves one way or another in America so they can afford surgery.”

    Yes but there is a difference between prostituting yourself and pimping out your family.

    I have nothing whatsoever against his decision to have children. But his decision to sell his children out without their consent for financial reward is irresponsible and reckless and contemptible.

  22. Please stop comparing this woman to other transexuals. I have a fair few Transexual friends and they are not like this person. They have gone through hell in order to become the right sex. This woman is not the same. That is quite clear.

  23. Pumpkin Pie 11 Jun 2009, 4:45pm

    Andrew Q, TOny (not tony), Monkeychops and Jon. Quite a quartet of disgusting transphobes we have here. No excuses, you really are all vile.

    Where to start? Well, let’s go with that whole pronoun issue. Why do we have different pronouns for people based on sex, but not sexuality, age, skin colour, height, etc., etc.? It’s more than just a sexual matter. Since the dawn of human civilization, men and women have had different roles in society, because they are internally very different. Basically speaking women’s and men’s brains are wired differently. Men and women think and act differently innately. It’s because of this that different pronouns exist. Imagine a species in which males and females were equal in every way, just some had one set of sex organs and the others had the other. Would be kinda pointless to treat each other any differently, wouldn’t it?

    It has been scientifically proven that transmen have male brains and transwomen female brains. If your brain was placed in a jar, would that make you a jar? What’s in your head is what’s important, it’s what makes you who you are more than any other physical characteristic. That’s where your gender is, and let’s not forget for a second that the term is “gender pronoun”, not “sex pronoun”.

    Next up, how about that whole “not a man ’til you surgically modify your body” notion? Is anybody out there really so much of a shallow-minded bigot that a male brain doesn’t make somebody a man, but an artificially constructed penis does? So reprehensibly cruel and morally deficient that they’d want somebody to go through costly, unnecessary, invasive, body-modifying surgery before you’d even dignify them with some respect? What kind of sick, Mengelesque bastard thinks such horrid thoughts? It’s thanks to creeps like this that a lot of transfolk feel they even need surgery in the first place.

    Hey, and then we have that “birth is a woman’s job” issue. Imagine for a moment that some time in the future it is possible for men to carry and give birth to babies instead of women, easily, safely, and with no permanent modification or damage to their bodies. Teleporters, duct tape, whatever – it doesn’t matter how, because this is a thought experiment about principles. If it was possible for men to take the burden for women, why should women be forced to do it? Would that make a man any less of a man? Is pregnancy and childbirth a “woman’s job”? Do they look like baby factories to you, you sexist pigs? Seahorses can do it. Hey, and so can transmen! And as Thomas Beatie quite succinctly explained: “Wanting to have a biological child is neither a male nor female desire, but a human desire.” And let’s not forget that his wife didn’t opt out: she actually physically couldn’t have children.

    And here’s the bottom line: why the hell does any of this even matter? If you don’t even have the decency to bite your tongue and risk offending your prejudiced little sensibilities even the tiniest bit in order to show some compassion, understanding and respect to some of the most walked-over, misunderstood and vulnerable people in our society, then you are morally decrepit, nasty, verminous, abhuman gutter trash of the worst kind. You think using the “right” gender pronoun is more important than making somebody feel comfortable about themself? Utterly pathetic.

  24. Well said Pumpkin Pie!

  25. Monkeychops 12 Jun 2009, 12:36pm

    Pumpikn -Predictably you’ve gone off on your high-horse thinking you know best, that only your opinion is of any value and….worst of all….calling people playground names. Stop. Now.

    If you bothered to talk to people who are not from the LGBT community about their confusion as to what trans means or how people should be called, then you might learn that people would actually like to know how to address trans people in the correct way. To save embarrassment, to show understanding and to display a bit of common courtesy. At the minute we are left with degrading terms like he-she, she-male, it and all sorts of other things. Why don’t you try suggesting some as opposed to spouting bile again? It is only human to categorise and understand – that is how we ALL work (even you).

    If it’s only what’s in your head that counts, then we need a term to address that, so people can related some kind of semantic value to what is going on. After all, look at ourselves – there are words for us to encapsulate the concept of same-sex attatraction (gay, lesbian, bisexual etc). People relate to that, they understand what it means and they get on with things. We don’t really have that for trans people – trans is incredibly broad as a term and hence all the confusion. On the other hand, if I felt in my head that I identified to the colour green, could I define myself as that? No, of course not, it’s absurd, so there must be limits somewhere. The terms male and female are medical terms to do with reproduction. Whether you take it from the exterior or interior physiology or down to the x-y or x-x chromosomes, it comes to the same thing. If these terms are not working or representing everyone, you make new terms, simple. Can you see that? As opposed to all this “let everyone be what they want to”, stuff, try thinking more logically about what the implications of that sentence actually are.

    And why the hell should anyone bite their tongue on a forum? No-one has actually viciously insulted anyone (except you calling people vile, creeps etc). You are so incredibly defensive about everything Pumpkin and you just keep putting these irrational, vicious paragraphs together.

    PS Do you really think that trans-people think they need surgery because of what WE think?

    PPS And here’s the bottom line: why the hell does any of this even matter?

    Because someone’s happiness and well-being are clearly at bloody stake and while there is such a bad understanding of what being trans is, then it’s not going to get any better for them. You are NOT helping.

  26. @ Monkeychops

    Would you address a lesbian as lesbian and not she? Or a gay male as gay and not he? You know you would not, so why not address a transgendered person in the gender they are presenting in its the simple solution its called showing respect.

  27. Simon Murphy 12 Jun 2009, 1:39pm

    No doubt Abi will again refuse to answer my question and just dismiss me as a bigot.

    I have always been taught that a transexual person is someone who gender identifies as the opposite sex to their birth gender ie female brain in a male body or vice versa. I have also always been taught that unless the transgendered person takes steps to start living life as his/her true gender then they will never be happy. This usually takes the form of counselling; hormone therapy; breast augmentation or removal etc; further surgery etc.

    Therefore a FTM transexual identifies as a man.

    Giving birth to children is only biological females can do – this includes transmen who have not had hysterectomies and who keep their female genitalia after transitioning.

    However if a FTM transexual wishes to get pregnant he needs to stop all hormone treatment; restart the whole menstrual cycle; ovulation etc. Then they can get pregnant and give birth.

    Being pregnant and giving birth has huge physical; psychological and hormonal impacts on a woman. The same impact would apply to a transman who has given birth. My straight female friend gave birth recently. She has an overpowering maternal instinct. This is something instinctive. She cannot control that. Her male partner does not have the same instinct as the child did not come from his body. For a transman who has given birth the psychological and hormonal impact would be the same as that experienced by a woman. He would have a maternal instinct.

    Basically it seems to be the case that the people are saying here that maternal instinct is stronger than gender identity. If so then fair enough. But that implies that gender identity is fluid. If that is the case then why the need for gender reassignment if it means that gender identity is only temporary.

    I am not trying to be contentious. I am genuinely trying to understand this but I am not getting coherent replies. I am getting accused of being a bigot.

    Transpeople do not seem to be able to explain the phenomenon of pregnant transmen in a reasonable manner without namecalling. If that is the case then it is any wonder they are struggling for acceptance.

  28. Monkeychops 12 Jun 2009, 2:22pm

    Simon – you make good point and I share your confusion

    Abi – Well I would consider myself both a man and gay. As I’m sure my brother would say he was straight and male. It could be that we see our situations as such because we have been socially conditioned to do so, but I’ve done a lot of thinking of gender and sexuality over the years. And there is no other way I would describe myself.

    If I am supposed to describe a FTM trans as male, then how do I distinguish myself as a non-trans male from the FTM? After all, we are not biologically the same, are we?

  29. Pumpkin Pie 12 Jun 2009, 4:34pm

    Leilah

    Tank ewe. :3

    Simon Murphy: I am getting accused of being a bigot.

    I might be being a little paranoid here, but I just wanted to make sure you didn’t think any of my diatribe was aimed at you. I named those I was talking to, I know you’re just asking complex questions because you’re genuinely interested.

    Monkeychops:-
    At the minute we are left with degrading terms like he-she, she-male, it and all sorts of other things.

    No, we’re not. Male brain = he, female brain = she.

    The terms male and female are medical terms to do with reproduction.

    This isn’t about sex, it’s about gender, which is a social construct.

  30. Monkeychops 12 Jun 2009, 5:53pm

    Pumpkin – YOUR opinion is that male brain = he, female brain = she (along with a few others on here). That is not how things are defined officially – which is done biologically, not socially. Maybe you want to check with the GMC. Male and female are defined on the basis of repdrocutive organs (do you remember the fights about changing birth certficate genders because being born with a penis meant you were classed as a man?). If it wasn’t done biologically, there would have been no fight, right? We would have had self-definition years ago. No-one’s saying it’s right or fair, but that’s how it is. I’m afraid you as an individual can’t just make up the rules, whether you have a point or not. I mean would you care to unilaterally declare that the killing of Armenians by Turkey was genocide without a UN ruling? Go on, make yourself the almighty, why not, make rules without reliable evidence. And reproduction isn’t necessarily sex. Never heard of a turkey baster to get up the duff? Worms are hermaphrodites, they don’t actually have sex with themselves, do they? And finally, yes we do have terms like he-she and she-male flaoting around as people get confused by the situation. It’s as offensive as being called a half-cast, a term which was around when no-one could think of an adequate term to class mixed race children. If you want to pretend they don’t exist, fine, but you won’t counter any prejudices that way.

    Incidentally, if gender, in your view is a social construct, then surely that means that people can choose their gender based on social conditioning? Nurture not nature? Hmmm…you could be opening a whole new can of vermicelli there…..the religious lobby better not read that!

  31. Pumpkin Pie 29 Jun 2009, 5:56pm

    That is not how things are defined officially

    Officially? That’s a pretty specious term. Sex is recorded based on genitalia because that’s pretty much the only thing we have to go on at that stage in development, plus it is pretty accurate most of the time. Besides I find it kind of funny that the GMC agrees with me here, as it agrees with the APA’s Diagnostics and Statistics Manual, which acknowledges the legitimacy of transsexuality.

    Incidentally, if gender, in your view is a social construct

    More specifically, it’s an attempt at categorizing and labelling differences between sexes. It seeks to describe – seeing as how it has been proven that transmen cannot psychologically become women and women cannot psychologically become men, it’s pretty safe to say that this is not a case of nurture over nature.

    PS: I know this thread has been dead for about two and a half weeks, but I haven’t had much time for internet browsing recently. I just wanted to tie up loose ends in this debate for the benefit of “spelunkers” – those who like to go diggin through the archives. Hello, spelunkers! :)

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all