Can a man get pregnant

[afleitch]

Yes.

[afleitch]

When political discourse devolves into semantic arguments, you know there's nothing of value to be gained here.

This is basically 'Can a man marry another man' for the '20s.

[afleitch]

     I find the way gender has been divided from biological sex fascinating, given that biological sex defines one of the fundamental elements of human existence (reproduction) and gender is primarily explained as a subjective mental phenomenon. If I were to divide the two, I would be forced to conclude that the more important category was sex, as it carries more profound meaning for human inter-relations. With that said, This points to an important difference in perspective as the people who advocate the idea of separating gender from sex do not accord a central place to reproduction in their anthropology and instead focus on other elements.

They do; perhaps just not necessarily in the way you would wish it. Stating that 'a man can get pregnant'; accepting the premise that a trans man may carry a child, and is still a man, is essentially 'according a central place to reproduction' in that specific incidence.

[afleitch]

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.

A trans man is not a biological man.  Men have a penis and cannot get pregnant.  This is not semantics, its actually a very important distinction.  Its disturbing that there are people here who think its just arguing over words.

There is no such thing as a biological man. There are biological males, but a man is a gender.

Even beyond the difference between gender and sex that people still somehow don't understand (or refuse to recognize), biological sex isn't even as binary as you think. Would the 60 No-voters (many of whom have red avatars and wouldn't consider themselves transphobic, despite inviting that trans people aren't the gender they say they are) say that an intersex person who identifies as a man, and has totally masculine features, testosterone levels comparable to cis male, is not a man if they never had a penis (or had a penis removed without their consent as a baby)? What if said intersex man were raised as a girl and came out as a man as an adult Can, would they lose ManPoints in your book? Can a trans man with XY chromosomes who's had top surgery, a phalloplasty, cis male levels of testosterone, and looks like Hulk Hogan even stll be called biologically female when, even though they were born with a vulva, all the biological markers of sex are those of males?

Why do cis people get to be the judge of which trans people are valid? Ultimately, the thing I will never be able to wrap my head around is why so many cis people even care what other people do with their bodies or what pronouns they use. Other people's bodies don't affect you at all.

I don't care what trans people do with their bodies or what pronouns they use.  I call them by whatever they want to be called.  If they feel like they're a man, good for them.  I'll treat them as a man.  Ultimately though, it doesn't change the fact that men can't get pregnant, only women can.  Its sad that some people are born into what they feel are the wrong bodies, I sympathize with them.

If you have a uterus you can get pregnant. And sometimes you can't. What that has to do with 'male/female' is of little use to this discussion. Saying 'only women can get pregnant' is not a true statement as some women cannot get pregnant. Post menopausal women cannot get pregnant. So you end up with a useless terminology if you define what it means to 'be woman' by their ability to carry children.