Can a man get pregnant

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

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

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

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.

Trans men's brains resemble cis men's brains more than cis women's brains(and vice versa). https://globalnews.ca/news/4223342/transgender-brain-scan-research/
It just baffles me that someone would think that someones body is more important to who someone is than their mind, their soul. It is usually actively distressing for trans people to be seen as their birth sex, and we don't actually gain anything by defining the categories of "man" and "woman" entirely based on the body. If you put a lions mind in a humans body, you don't get a human; you get a very confused and upset lion.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

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.

For most trans people, being seen as our gender instead of our physical sex is pretty important. I don't see any good reason for the other side of the debate to care, but it is significant to us.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

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.

We aren't saying that trans men have penises or whatever. We're saying that categorizing whether someone is a man or a woman in social contexts based solely on whether they were born with ovaries or testicles hurts trans people and has no upside.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

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.

You care enough to draw a hard line on who gets to be a man. A hard line that ignores the distinction between gender and sex, and completely ignores intersex people or post-op trans people.

You say you sympathize with them, but you'll say that they're not a man if they do X (in this case, become pregnant, but following the same logic, cis people can, will, and do pick whatever activity of descriptor as being something that means a trans person cannot be the gender they say they are.

I just want all the No voters to admit that they don't think trans people are the gender they say they are. Many will and have done this happily, but many of those voters would consider themselves supportive or at least sympathetic to trans people. The burden is on the latter group to explain how denying that trans people are the gender they say they are does not make them a textbook transphobe.

The transgender movement ignores the distinction between gender and sex all the time. Funny how we don't see you criticizing when they do it.

For example: birth certificates list sex, not gender. But many of them insist on changing their birth certificate to reflect something they were not born as.

This is a laughably bad faith take.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

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.

You care enough to draw a hard line on who gets to be a man. A hard line that ignores the distinction between gender and sex, and completely ignores intersex people or post-op trans people.

You say you sympathize with them, but you'll say that they're not a man if they do X (in this case, become pregnant, but following the same logic, cis people can, will, and do pick whatever activity of descriptor as being something that means a trans person cannot be the gender they say they are.

I just want all the No voters to admit that they don't think trans people are the gender they say they are. Many will and have done this happily, but many of those voters would consider themselves supportive or at least sympathetic to trans people. The burden is on the latter group to explain how denying that trans people are the gender they say they are does not make them a textbook transphobe.

The transgender movement ignores the distinction between gender and sex all the time. Funny how we don't see you criticizing when they do it.

For example: birth certificates list sex, not gender. But many of them insist on changing their birth certificate to reflect something they were not born as.

This is a laughably bad faith take.

you just don't like what's being said.

Pretty much all pro trans people see the sex label as effectively a gender marker for all practical purposes and/or think that birth sex shouldn't be on id(at least without also having gender marked as a superannuation category.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

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.

You care enough to draw a hard line on who gets to be a man. A hard line that ignores the distinction between gender and sex, and completely ignores intersex people or post-op trans people.

You say you sympathize with them, but you'll say that they're not a man if they do X (in this case, become pregnant, but following the same logic, cis people can, will, and do pick whatever activity of descriptor as being something that means a trans person cannot be the gender they say they are.

I just want all the No voters to admit that they don't think trans people are the gender they say they are. Many will and have done this happily, but many of those voters would consider themselves supportive or at least sympathetic to trans people. The burden is on the latter group to explain how denying that trans people are the gender they say they are does not make them a textbook transphobe.

The transgender movement ignores the distinction between gender and sex all the time. Funny how we don't see you criticizing when they do it.

For example: birth certificates list sex, not gender. But many of them insist on changing their birth certificate to reflect something they were not born as.

This is a laughably bad faith take.

you just don't like what's being said.

Pretty much all pro trans people see the sex label as effectively a gender marker for all practical purposes and/or think that birth sex shouldn't be on id(at least without also having gender marked as a superannuation category.

You're only proving my point that the trans movement ignores the distinction between gender and sex all the time.

Why shouldn't your sex be listed on your birth certificates and IDs? For the purpose of birth certificates especially, no amount of living your life as something else changes the fact that we are born male or female. It's not something someone just assigned to us, it's our state of existence as humans.

Birth sex is not fundamental to who we are in any way relevant to identification in a way gender is not. The reverse is not true. Gender tells says plenty about us that sex doesn't. Ones mind is generally more important to who one is than ones body.

And thinking that birth sex shouldn't be on identification and gender should is not " ignor[ing] the distinction between gender and sex". This should be obvious.

I'd type more, but I'm already on my break too long.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

no man has ever gotten pregnant or given birth and no man ever will. it’s a specifically and intrinsically female experience, and the most important and defining one at that.

I hope uterine transplants become a thing just to see if you react with the ideologically consistent "okay, trans women who get uterine transplants are women" or the more likely "b... but he wasn't born a woman! That's not his uterus!".
If the former, are trans people the gender they say they are without the need for affirming fertility apparatuses, provided they fail to bear children? It's fine if we're not, I just want to gather information about your views.

It's possible the argument comes from that if one has a child, they are 'surrendering' being male. Or, to put it in other terms, if one is truly transgender they wouldn't participate in cisgender things.

"Cisgender things"?

Traditional gender things, like childbirth for women for instance.

What if, say, a trans man is forced to carry a child to term by the overturning of Roe v. Wade?

I'm LGBT and pro-choice, this isn't the burn you think it is.

I think Sol was trying to imply that your idea leads to the unfair situation where a trans man who has an unwanted pregnancy is and lives in a state where abortion is illegal and is thus forced to give birth has to give up being male as well.

Also a gay or bi(or pan, ace. etc) cis person can still be transphobic.trans people can be transphobic as well, just like women can be misogynistic, but thats another can of worms.