Can a man get pregnant

[If my soul was made of stone]

I thought the entire basis for why men don't get to have opinions on abortion was because we can't have babies.

Thus the question is raised over whether a trans man forfeits his right to have an opinion on abortion if he gets a hysterectomy. Or, you know, a cis woman who gets a hysterectomy, a cis woman whose uterus is physically intact but impaired in function, etc. The maxim has always been offensive to me as someone both deeply conflicted over her gender identity, who has long desired a uterus and felt awful about her inability to procure one, and deeply conflicted on her attitudes towards abortion, but ultimately liberal feminism is all about feel-good soundbites that veil regressive and exclusionary sentiments.

I'm skeptical of unadulterated gender constructivism as well, as it's failed me in my attempts to understand myself and I see it harming other people who are in a similar position, but as I see it certain people who identify as men are capable of becoming pregnant, whether or not they care to, so I would give a "yes". Obviously this question is not being asked in good faith, but it's because and not in spite of that that I feel inclined to provide my perspective.

[If my soul was made of stone]

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.

What does it mean for your mind or soul to be a gender? This is what I just don't get. My mind and soul aren't male/man or female/woman, my body just happens to be male and I just happen to be a man.

What does it mean to be a woman or man? I have yet to hear an answer to this that did not fall back on gender stereotypes.

Gender dysphoria is the experience of my body telling me that it doesn't want to be a man's body. My limbs are too long and feel physically stretched out, my hips feel like something's pushing them inwards, my genitalia feel like a profane and alien growth, et cetera. I identify with that physicality much more than I do my own. I could never see my body as "just happen[ing] to be male" or my spirit as such because of this experience. You don't understand simply because you don't have this experience, but that doesn't mean that you have to be hostile to those who do.

[If my soul was made of stone]

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.

What does it mean for your mind or soul to be a gender? This is what I just don't get. My mind and soul aren't male/man or female/woman, my body just happens to be male and I just happen to be a man.

What does it mean to be a woman or man? I have yet to hear an answer to this that did not fall back on gender stereotypes.

Gender dysphoria is the experience of my body telling me that it doesn't want to be a man's body. My limbs are too long and feel physically stretched out, my hips feel like something's pushing them inwards, my genitalia feel like a profane and alien growth, et cetera. I identify with that physicality much more than I do my own. I could never see my body as "just happen[ing] to be male" or my spirit as such because of this experience. You don't understand simply because you don't have this experience, but that doesn't mean that you have to be hostile to those who do.

I'm not being hostile at all. And while this helps me understand the trans experience to an extent, it still does not even sightly answer my question so I will pose it again.

What does it mean to be a man or a woman?

For me that experience is tied up in experiences of body, but it clearly means something different for everyone. Even the cis folks I know have very different perspectives on what their body and gender identity and gendered expectations and sexuality mean to them. I interpret my own experiences through a lens of feminine physicality and the metaphysical ideas associated with it, and thus I identify with that schema even though I don't identify as A Woman™ as such. I also identify heavily with the forms of gender non-conformity seen in classical antiquity and pre-colonial societies, which are often ignored in discourse like this in favor of making transgender identity as a concept seem like it was cooked up by the Frankfurt School or a bunch of random sex pests who are easy targets for the right.

Ultimately I can only speak for my own experiences, although I know that there are plenty of folks here who can speak for their own perspective on gender non-conformity, trans or otherwise.

[If my soul was made of stone]

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 are plenty of trans men who've had hysterectomies and phalloplasties and thus fit your criteria.

[If my soul was made of stone]

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.

Pronouns also reference biological sex rather than gender, since throughout history they were automatically applied to a baby upon its birth.

Yet we recognized above that this usage has changed since whatever your definition of "throughout history" entails (which is itself misleading, since there have been many instances of historically-recognized gender non-conforming people being known by other pronouns than those they were assigned at birth and by the name given by their culture to gender non-conforming people), although your response to it was the very wishy-washy "definitions do change but I'm still going to be hostile to this particular instance of it Because Ideology".

[If my soul was made of stone]

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.

Pronouns also reference biological sex rather than gender, since throughout history they were automatically applied to a baby upon its birth.

Yet we recognized above that this usage has changed since whatever your definition of "throughout history" entails (which is itself misleading, since there have been many instances of historically-recognized gender non-conforming people being known by other pronouns than those they were assigned at birth and by the name given by their culture to gender non-conforming people), although your response to it was the very wishy-washy "definitions do change but I'm still going to be hostile to this particular instance of it Because Ideology".

So you have the right to alter the definitions but we don't have the right to question those changes?

You have every right to question it; I just don't think you were doing so in good faith.

[If my soul was made of stone]

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.

Pronouns also reference biological sex rather than gender, since throughout history they were automatically applied to a baby upon its birth.

Yet we recognized above that this usage has changed since whatever your definition of "throughout history" entails (which is itself misleading, since there have been many instances of historically-recognized gender non-conforming people being known by other pronouns than those they were assigned at birth and by the name given by their culture to gender non-conforming people), although your response to it was the very wishy-washy "definitions do change but I'm still going to be hostile to this particular instance of it Because Ideology".

So you have the right to alter the definitions but we don't have the right to question those changes?

You have every right to question it; I just don't think you were doing so in good faith.

Oh ok. Why is that? I would instinctively question any redefinition of any word. The burden is on those advocating a change to the status quo to demonstrate why the change is necessary.

I could just as well argue that the burden of proof is on you, since countless societies throughout history have recognized some understanding of gender non-conformity and you're advocating for the replacement of that with a totalizing understanding of deterministic biological essentialism, but that would be puerile sophistry. Either way, it's clear that the case for as much should be made to you for the sake of your own understanding.

Interdependent though they are, our cognition and our perceptions of ourselves are not strictly determined by our bodies. We have an ability as intelligent beings to perceive and make judgments about our bodies, to listen or not listen to what our bodies tell us, to understand our bodies in relation to those of others. We are also capable of identifying with characteristics of the body or other ideas that are not our own; if one prefers a slimmer form to that of their current size, BMI, et cetera, then they are capable of taking actions to actualize that form. My experience of gender dysphoria is my cognition's way of telling me that it sees other bodies as a greater fit for itself than my own, which in turn becomes an embodied experience of pain relative to certain characteristics that I consider undesirable (the length of my limbs, the breadth of my shoulders, and so on). Thus I have a conception of what physicality I identify with that exists separately from the physicality that I am granted by my birth sex and sundry genetic characteristics. I also happen to identify with various embodied processes of the feminine form that I am not privy to: giving birth, breastfeeding, menstruating, etc. Unfortunately, the limits of current scientific advancement preclude much of this from being realized, but I still experience those ideas as personal ideals and phenomena of body (feeling a hole in my abdomen where I feel a uterus ought to be).

From this experience I have constructed an identity around these signifiers rather than those that I was born into, and thus I am taking certain actions, such as changing my manner of dress, hormone replacement therapy, and hopefully certain surgeries in the future, to adapt my form and presentation to that which I know as a personal ideal and that which my body tells me that it should inhabit. The medical profession by and large accepts this as better treatment for the distress caused by incongruity of sex and conception of self (or "gender identity" if you will) than any of the means typically used to repress this division, and contrary to your insistence the ethically-questionable Foucaults and Moneys (no one even talks about the latter unless they're pushing an agenda) of the world aren't the only ones who have noted this.

It would appear from the records of classical antiquity and the various pre-colonial societies of Siberia, the Philippines, Latin America, and so on, that humans have understood gender identity as separate from birth sex for perhaps longer than humans have kept history; examples can be found around the world of societies that recognize a social role for those who adopt the mannerisms of the other sex or of some liminal space between the two, at times within a religious context (some folks, including our own trans-adjacent pal Nathan, argue that gender dysphoria is best understood as a spiritual experience, although surely this won't appeal to you). Even setting aside gender non-conformity, gender roles have varied and evolved in various societies throughout history, some societies adopting characteristics in one gender that others see more in another, to the point that we can reject any idea of gender being solely informed by innate qualities of sex rather than subjective societal ideas.

Thus one might turn the premise on its head and ask, as I hinted at above: why has Western Civilization™ seen fit to reject these understandings in favor of the idea that there is no difference between sex and gender? Why don't you have to prove that the muxe or the babaylan are invalid ways of understanding oneself in relation to one's body or the ideas that emerge from bodies and that we instead must conform strictly to what we were born with? Why don't you have to prove that when I feel the sensation of compression squeezing hips inwards that beg to be those of a woman it's best merely to live with that deeply harrowing sensation rather than take a medication that my doctor at a world-renowned hospital has prescribed me with the aim of alleviating that phenomenon and making my form resemble what it tells me that it ought to be?

Ultimately, I can only speak from my personal experience and my own understandings of these ideas far greater than the scope of one person's understanding. I hope that I have done justice to these experiences and the great weight of questions that our species has pondered for as long as we have known thought.

[If my soul was made of stone]

It would appear from the records of classical antiquity and the various pre-colonial societies of Siberia, the Philippines, Latin America, and so on, that humans have understood gender identity as separate from birth sex for perhaps longer than humans have kept history; examples can be found around the world of societies that recognize a social role for those who adopt the mannerisms of the other sex or of some liminal space between the two, at times within a religious context (some folks, including our own trans-adjacent pal Nathan, argue that gender dysphoria is best understood as a spiritual experience, although surely this won't appeal to you). Even setting aside gender non-conformity, gender roles have varied and evolved in various societies throughout history, some societies adopting characteristics in one gender that others see more in another, to the point that we can reject any idea of gender being solely informed by innate qualities of sex rather than subjective societal ideas.

Thus one might turn the premise on its head and ask, as I hinted at above: why has Western Civilization™ seen fit to reject these understandings in favor of the idea that there is no difference between sex and gender? Why don't you have to prove that the muxe or the babaylan are invalid ways of understanding oneself in relation to one's body or the ideas that emerge from bodies and that we instead must conform strictly to what we were born with? Why don't you have to prove that when I feel the sensation of compression squeezing hips inwards that beg to be those of a woman it's best merely to live with that deeply harrowing sensation rather than take a medication that my doctor at a world-renowned hospital has prescribed me with the aim of alleviating that phenomenon and making my form resemble what it tells me that it ought to be?

Ultimately, I can only speak from my personal experience and my own understandings of these ideas far greater than the scope of one person's understanding. I hope that I have done justice to these experiences and the great weight of questions that our species has pondered for as long as we have known thought.

I won't comment on your personal anecdotes and experiences. However, I will say this: Most of the historical "third genders" in other cultures that trans people point to are either not analogous to their cause or were fabricated quite recently (e.g. "Two-Spirit"). And in any case, the way that Siberians or Filipinos choose to communicate has no bearing on communication in English. If you want to add a word as stupid as "xir" to my vocabulary, you had better demonstrate pretty conclusively that it is useful in communication-- which it isn't, by the simple fact that 99% of people have no idea what it means or refers to. Other languages gender all their nouns, but you don't see me doing that in English and then arguing that the burden is on you to show why I shouldn't do that. If I were to do such a thing, I would probably come across as a tad unhinged.

The fact that the roles we assign to the sexes have changed does not mean the sexes themselves have changed. Another thing the gender crew likes to throw around is that picture of FDR in a dress. What exactly do things like this prove? Yes, gender roles are mutable. That was never in question.

Anyway, you seem to understand that I have no interest in giving attention or legitimacy to anything "spiritual," and I certainly will not alter the way I use language in order to conform to such a thing. You might as well tell me that I have to believe in ghosts because of the "experiences" a few dingbats have had with them. But as always, consenting adults are free to do as they choose, and no one has any right to stop you from seeking surgery so that your outward self matches your inward self. I think the trans movement would be better served by a heightened focus on the individual rather than demanding some kind of Hegelian recognition of their identity from everyone else in society-- my opinion on this shouldn't matter to you, nor should yours matter to me. So long as I don't violate your bodily autonomy by preventing you from getting surgery and you don't violate my right to free speech by making "misgendering" an offense, we shouldn't care what the other thinks.

The term "two-spirit" is indeed of fairly recent coinage, replacing prior terminology that is now considered outdated and offensive, and folks who subscribe to the contemporary Western conception of transness trying to totalize them as part of their milieu are engaging in misguided cultural imperialism, but those cultures did/do indeed have conceptions of gender non-conformity.

I never meant to imply that there should be any tangible penalty (besides being gently corrected) for misgendering, which I consider very frivolous; however, too many people blur the line in bad faith and insist that even being politely told to call someone by another pronoun that they prefer is censorship, which I don't have the time to deal with.

[If my soul was made of stone]

No one is “objectively” not black from a definition that is not inherently arbitrary.

Just because you're ignorant of the debate between how to categorize racial categories does not mean the debate does not exist with similar contention to the debate over gender definitions.

Ask any mixed raced person, especially someone who is 1/4 or less black if their blackness is universally accepted as valid, in the black community or out of it. There is debate on whether Africans Descended from Slaves and African immigrants belong in the same category. Then there's Afro-Latinx immigrants who emigrated from Latin American countries but whose ancestors in those countries were slaves stolen from Afrifa; many of them identify strictly as Hispanic and not black, and many of those who identify as black are told by non-Latinx black Americans that they're more Hispanic than black. Then there's Africans in Africa, many of whom feel solidarity with black Americans and consider them to be one people, then there's Africans who feel they're completely separate from black Americans and that the concept of race and blackness is not as important to their identity as it is for black Americans.

So, most of the time when we talk about black people, most of us agree on who we're talking about. Nevertheless, there is contention, especially when you try to pin down a specific definitive definition. That's the same thing with trying to pin down a specific definition for women or men.

You’re just proving my point that black has no definition beyond how people want to define it because people define it based on totally arbritary things. If gender is the same, then there’s nothing wrong with saying, “there’s only two genders, and they’re based in biological sex.”

Again, not my point. My point is, while looking to pin down a specific definition is going to involve semantic debate, we all agree that black people exist, just as we agree that men and women exist (I'm going to assume you don't believe nonbinary people exist, though I'd be happy to he proven wrong, so I'll leave them out of this for now, no pun intended). To exclude people who are clearly black who identify as black from being black based on whatever semantic loophole — perhaps they're an African or a Latin American immigrant, perhaps they're multiracial with whute-passing parents — defeats the purpose of racial categorization in general. To exclude someone who is clearly a man who identifies as a man — and let's add that this theoretical man has a penis and is legally recognized as man — from being a man because he wasn't born with a penis, and perhaps he gave birth before medically transitioning (but after socially transitioning), defeats the purpose of gender labels. If that's not a man, then what is he?

Black people exist because human beings have crafted the category of “black” to put human beings into. Males are not males because they happen to fit into some man-made categorization of human beings based on arbitrary characteristics, because maleness is 100% a real, biological phenomenon, distinct from femaleness.

Gender. And. Sex. Are. Not. The. Same. Thing.

Man. And. Male. Mean. Different. Things.

Woman.  And. Female. Mean. Different. Things.

For thousands of years, they didn’t, though- gender and sex were seen as synonymous. It’s only recently their has been a proposed difference between the two.

I assume all of the historical examples of gender non-conformity that I listed in my posts just went right over your head, then.

[If my soul was made of stone]

Men can't get pregnant. If a 'birthing person' gives birth, they are a woman. Trans men can be men, but they clearly aren't if they give birth to a child.

What is it about giving birth which meaningfully changes a person's gender?

What could be more quintessentially feminine than the experience of being pregnant & giving birth ?

As a transfeminine person, it breaks my heart that the feminine sacrality of that experience isn't available to me. However, reducing femininity to that is a dangerous antifeminist position that enforces the idea that people aren't anything more than their strict biological function. There's far more to feminine ideas and experiences than just being a baby factory.

[If my soul was made of stone]

Men can't get pregnant. If a 'birthing person' gives birth, they are a woman. Trans men can be men, but they clearly aren't if they give birth to a child.

What is it about giving birth which meaningfully changes a person's gender?

What could be more quintessentially feminine than the experience of being pregnant & giving birth ?

As a transfeminine person, it breaks my heart that the feminine sacrality of that experience isn't available to me. However, reducing femininity to that is a dangerous antifeminist position that enforces the idea that people aren't anything more than their strict biological function. There's far more to feminine ideas and experiences than just being a baby factory.

You speak of "feminine sacrality" of the experience of pregnancy and birth while calling it "just being a baby factory" ?

Said sacrality has been debased and commodified by patriarchy. Nuance, people.

[If my soul was made of stone]

[If my soul was made of stone]