Can a man get pregnant

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Trans men exist. So yes.(sane, abnormal)

Trans men are trans men.  They are not biologically a man, so no.  What they choose to identify as is different from what they literally are.  Thats not even a slight at them, its just literally facts.

See, this is the sort of definitions game that Antonio was talking about on the first page of this thread. Trans men obviously exist and obviously, in at least some cases, can and do get pregnant. That much is simply beyond denial. What purpose is served by the endless syntactical arguments about what specific type of noun phrase "trans man" is, arguments generally engaged in by people deeply hostile to one another on increasingly profound cultural and moral levels and often without any demonstrably accurate premises or rigorous definition of terms on either side? As far as I can tell the only purposes they serve are that of a make-work program for right-wing humanities scholars and that of a way for irreligious progressives to chase the high of being ruled orthodox at a first-millennium ecumenical council. It's a fundamentally frivolous and bad-faith way of approaching an issue area that involves genuinely serious concerns.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This is just a proxy for "do you think trans people are the gender they identify as".

Everyone obviously knows that Elliot Page can get pregnant, because he has a uterus. (Assuming he hasn't had a hysterectomy.)

So "can a man get pregnant" is really just asking "Do you believe Elliot Page is really a man"?

Yes, which is why it's a disingenuous semantics game.

To Scarlet's point, I understand the importance of supporting and validating trans people on this, but questions like when to use "man" vs. "male", whether "trans" in "trans man" is a prenominal adjective or part of a compound word that happens to have a space in it like the British spelling of "work day", etc., still strike me as...well, aiming awfully small and missing the forest for the trees, especially in languages where these concepts don't have words that are as distinct as they are in English (Italian for example has femminile for both "female" and "feminine", whereas Japanese has a whole panoply of minutely differentiated sex and gender-role terminology, yet few people would claim life as a trans person is easier in Japan than it is in Italy).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Trans men exist. So yes.(sane, abnormal)

Trans men are trans men.  They are not biologically a man, so no.  What they choose to identify as is different from what they literally are.  Thats not even a slight at them, its just literally facts.

See, this is the sort of definitions game that Antonio was talking about on the first page of this thread. Trans men obviously exist and obviously, in at least some cases, can and do get pregnant. That much is simply beyond denial. What purpose is served by the endless syntactical arguments about what specific type of noun phrase "trans man" is, arguments generally engaged in by people deeply hostile to one another on increasingly profound cultural and moral levels and often without any demonstrably accurate premises or rigorous definition of terms on either side? As far as I can tell the only purposes they serve are that of a make-work program for right-wing humanities scholars and that of a way for irreligious progressives to chase the high of being ruled orthodox at a first-millennium ecumenical council. It's a fundamentally frivolous and bad-faith way of approaching an issue area that involves genuinely serious concerns.

I'm happy to announce that I've changed my position on this due to my own framing. At this stage in the history of American academia, you'd have to be a Randian monster to oppose make-work programs for right-wing humanities scholars.