Spirit Health Style Relationships Home Food Money World

First TV Interview: The Pregnant Man

harpobear
Level 5

Posted on Mar 28, 2008 3:19 PM

It's the story that has the media buzzing and people talking. A happily married couple who lives in a normal neighborhood in America are expecting their first child. But, there's a big twist…the husband, Thomas, is the one pregnant. Thomas is here with his wife for their first television interview. How is this possible? Find out as the couple shares with Oprah the details of their pasts, their relationship and their incredible pregnancy. Also, watch as our cameras capture Thomas's ultrasound and take us inside their home to see the plans for the family's nursery.

See what happened on the show!
reply
Replies: 2,631
rybailey
Level 1
2,266. Re: First TV Interview: The Pregnant Man
Apr 9, 2008 5:43 PM   |   In response to: suelizbeth

I am disturbed by your stragedy to label human beings so divisively. Language like this will never simply allow rights for YOUR type of person but stop them for everyone. Embrace all humanity and humanity may someday embrace every part of itself.

Reply
jwb52z1
Level 3
2,267. Re: First TV Interview: The Pregnant Man
Apr 9, 2008 6:16 PM   |   In response to: mwhite61

mwhite61 wrote:I guess it depends on what you read and believe. The Bible has been interpreted by too many to count in just as many ways. I was trying to tell the person who quoted the Bible that we can all quote the Bible, but we cannot all live by it. Simply quoting the Bible doesn't make her right. I take that verse to mean that we should not judge one another. That we should live our best life and let God judge us. I was trying to make the point "who is she to judge another person."

I interpret John 8:7 to mean that We should not cast stones (or pass judgements) unless we are perfect ourselves
" So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, "he who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first" "

So can we agree that the Bible is a guide and is open to interpretation by each person that reads it? It shouldn't be used to put another person down or call them names. mwhite61 wrote:I guess it depends on what you read and believe. The Bible has been interpreted by too many to count in just as many ways. I was trying to tell the person who quoted the Bible that we can all quote the Bible, but we cannot all live by it. Simply quoting the Bible doesn't make her right. I take that verse to mean that we should not judge one another. That we should live our best life and let God judge us. I was trying to make the point "who is she to judge another person."

I interpret John 8:7 to mean that We should not cast stones (or pass judgements) unless we are perfect ourselves
" So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, "he who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first" "

So can we agree that the Bible is a guide and is open to interpretation by each person that reads it? It shouldn't be used to put another person down or call them names.
I guess I didn't explain myself properly. My interpretation is simply one of the wording and grammar that is there. Most people, for example, don't understand what the word "lest" means because it's a rarely used word in modern English. It means "unless" there. That's why I can't think that the Bible verse in question means "don't judge anyone ever". I can understand where you are coming from with "let he who is without sin....", but if you don't mind I'd like to tell you how I see it. The way I read this is more like this. If I have done something wrong and learned from it and not to do it again, I am in a position to "cast stones" in the form of warnings or advice, not active spiteful criticism that is only meant to hurt. :) Thank you for being so delightfully nice and polite. It would be a pleasure to discuss things with you again.

Reply
jwb52z1
Level 3
2,268. Re: First TV Interview: The Pregnant Man
Apr 9, 2008 6:25 PM   |   In response to: will57

will57 wrote:

If your gay why do some of you think it's ok to buy, make a deal or what ever to get sperm from a man or have a derogate women bring a child into your lives using your own sperm or body to get what you can't achieve between the two of you.
Be it man or women? Because it's impossible for two of the same sex's to produce a child on their own.

I'm not talking about adoptions here. I feel that giving a loving home by any couple be you gay or otherwise to a child in need it great.

This is how I feel about the subject. My partner and I cannot produce a baby on our own no matter how hard we try. WHY? Because we're two gay men. We would have to jump out of the gay and into the hey in order for this to occur. So how convenient it is for some of us gay people to think we can have our cake and eat it too.

Ok, first of all, the word is "you're" not "your". I have a pet peeve with people who want to be taken seriously, but can't write a sentence properly and don't know their homophones and such by the time they are adults. If you don't know what that word means, look it up. Why do you ask why someone thinks that is ok? It's actually NOT impossible for 2 people of the same gender to have a biological child anymore. It's simply not widely known and available outside of the laboratory yet. Research it yourself. In the male/male case it involves converting one of the two men's sperm into an synthetic egg through genetic technology. In the case of two women, it can be done that way as well by converting one of the two eggs into an artificial sperm or, which is even simpler, two eggs can be fused together to make a baby, but that's only going to create girls as we all know, so other methods would have to be employed to get a boy through the technology. I have just realized that this post may be by two different people, one responding to another, but I feel I needed to point out the misinformation about the ability of having biological children once again.

Reply
jwb52z1
Level 3
2,269. Re: First TV Interview: The Pregnant Man
Apr 9, 2008 6:26 PM   |   In response to: will57

will57 wrote:

If your gay why do some of you think it's ok to buy, make a deal or what ever to get sperm from a man or have a derogate women bring a child into your lives using your own sperm or body to get what you can't achieve between the two of you.
Be it man or women? Because it's impossible for two of the same sex's to produce a child on their own.

I'm not talking about adoptions here. I feel that giving a loving home by any couple be you gay or otherwise to a child in need it great.

This is how I feel about the subject. My partner and I cannot produce a baby on our own no matter how hard we try. WHY? Because we're two gay men. We would have to jump out of the gay and into the hey in order for this to occur. So how convenient it is for some of us gay people to think we can have our cake and eat it too.

It also occurred to me that I think you responded to me in error in the first place. None of these were my words.

Reply
jwb52z1
Level 3
2,270. Re: First TV Interview: The Pregnant Man
Apr 9, 2008 6:27 PM   |   In response to: no_no_no

no_no_no wrote:This story was meant for Jerry Springer. These people are self-promoting for book deals, probably a reality show, cash from magazines. This is a "woman" on male hormones, who wants her moments of fame and cash. This demeans the context of a family, and what God intended. Oprah, sad to say you have lost your moral compass.
Try to remember that this is your idea of God that not everyone wants or agrees with anymore as well as your idea of morality alone. No matter how much Faith you have in something does not make it proof or a standard you can properly use with any authority except that which you believe you have which isn't valid to everyone else.

Reply
jwb52z1
Level 3
2,271. Re: First TV Interview: The Pregnant Man
Apr 9, 2008 6:32 PM   |   In response to: t66048

t66048 wrote:Hmmm to all that have stated how narrow minded some of us are because we feel tricked. Well in the small 30 60 second clips there was no mention of any issue other than man having baby. While I thought the man looked somewhat feminine I still thought he was a nice looking man. Living in Hawaii myself for a great amount of time he fit the trim cute face boy looks that I grew accustomed to .

So again at any time if a 10 sec ond clip said trans gender sexual gay couple anything reaction would have been diffrent. He was shown as male with female wife with announcement that he is first male to have child. Many men have children and acquire them any various ways. taking care of family after a death, girl left you kid, adoption etc..................It was presented a MAN has found way to biological have baby with no female parts. Yes sometimes you have to hit me on the head a bit harder than other times, but I do know what I seen as an advertisement. And I do now how baby's can be created in many ways and what a child needs to grow inside a body. So no womb no attachment for cord no blood flow etc...................we were led to believe prior to show that this was being addressed. I would like to go on with my miracle baby. titled uterus, no cervix, only one fallopian tube and 1/2 constructed ovary. lots of surgery at young age. Guess what. After being told I could not have baby. yet still using b/c to be sure we had a boy and a girl and yes we still were having sex. well hmmm baby 3 is here and is now turning 2 So to me that is more a story the Thomas. I am happy for him to have his own child great. Just don't advertise fillet mignon and expect me to buy hamburger for same price. I wanted to see science at work and was very disappointed.
I guess you're one of the people who was "out of the loop" because it was just nothing more than an afterthought that he was a transexual, meaning I didn't and wouldn't have assumed anything else yet. Although, that one day could change with the invention of an artificial womb, which is not as far from reality as some people would like to believe.

Reply
jwb52z1
Level 3
2,272. Re: First TV Interview: The Pregnant Man
Apr 9, 2008 6:34 PM   |   In response to: angiesmom2

angiesmom2 wrote:Schlomo: With all due respect, it was the commercial for the show that duped us! They sensationalized it. Also, how can you tell that the family was so respectful...because they act like it on tv? It's called an ACT! Everyone does that. it does not mean the kids arent really freaked out! And they should not have come on tv because they are putting that future child at risk. She has female organs, whether she's a lesbian, a transman/woman whatever, she has female organs so it's not interesting. They might as well have done a show with Jamie Lee Curtis having had a child....cuz she's a hermaphrodite (sorry, i know the real word and this one is outdated and wrong but i forget it.). Anyway...this is not really a story.
I understand why you say it is not interesting, but what makes it interesting to many of us is that not many transexual men opt to have their own biological children. That is what makes it news. BTW, it's an urban legend that Jamie Lee Curtis is an intersexed person. Look it up.

Reply
cmb1952
Level 1
2,273. Re: First TV Interview: The Pregnant Man
Apr 9, 2008 6:43 PM   |   In response to: n6dzb9

Good posting n6dbz9. I got a BIG hearty laugh out of it.
Makes me realize what a joke this show really was.
Thanks...CMB

Reply
jwb52z1
Level 3
2,274. Re: First TV Interview: The Pregnant Man
Apr 9, 2008 6:52 PM   |   In response to: hakafos

hakafos wrote:My concern with all of the genetic reconfiguring you highlighted is what will happen to those children born in the first round when they may not quite get it rght? Who may be born with some odd genetic problems. It can be very dangerous to reconfigure genetic material in that way. Fusing eggs, and converting sperm to eggs and eggs to sperm? I would caution those who are doing it to weigh the cost against the benefits since these are human beings we are talking about..

As for people going to other planets, that is taking segregation to a whole new level. We need to learn to live together and stop this divisiveness. Just because people are uncomfortable with this couple and what they are doing in parading their baby around like a prize heifer at 4-H does not mean that they are anti-gay.

And don't blame faith for the errant behavior of the faithful or what men do in its name. You are loved by the creator; we all are.
Yes, there is always a danger with science, but if they don't ever try it, it won't be doable perfectly at all in the first place. Yes, it is sad when children are born with problems, but children are already born with horrendous problems all over the world without genetic processes being used, so not much would change there. Contrary to what people think from watching movies, you don't get disfigured mutants in most of things that would happen to DNA being put through engineering processes because we have a good handle on what the human genes do ever since the genome was cracked. We are learning more every day about everything every gene does. I say that it is worth the risk and I am not trying to be a horrible person because I don't wish any problems on people. The problems you bring up are why they hire and train those genetic ethicists. That's not the correct term, but I can't think of it right now. They are people specifically trained to work in this industry who will help the pure scientists think about the possible ramifications of their work. It's such people who helped us realize that cloning a dead person doesn't actually bring that same person back to life because it can't ever be completely perfectly duplicated, the life I mean, that led to the person who died being who they were before they died. I hope I haven't made you too terribly confused. I am not talking about enforced segregation when I mention other planets. I just want a day when we can actually leave each other truly alone if we wish to do so. Right now, we don't have a choice but to live together by necessity, so we have to make the best of it. Through science, there will inevitably come a day when people can choose to live apart if they wish on other worlds. Of course, people who are uncomfortable with it are not "anti-gay" because we're not dealing with a gay person here, but their fears do make them closed minded to the situation on some level at the very least. If you can't "blame faith" for things like this, you can't really talk to or about the people against such things because the vast majority of those who are against such things are against them because of that Faith. That Faith is telling them what to believe and how to believe and how to practice their daily lives and how to treat others. That's the problem with that. They feel they have the ultimate justification for mistreating others.

Reply
jwb52z1
Level 3
2,275. Re: First TV Interview: The Pregnant Man
Apr 9, 2008 6:54 PM   |   In response to: hakafos

hakafos wrote:I understand that you may have issue with the Bible but please don't call God a bastard. That is as much hate speech as anything you may have seen here that offends you. If you don't like how the Bible was used against you, address that person. Not the deity. Please.
I just call the God of the Bible a bastard, not the God I think actually exists. There's a difference. Hate speech as humans have defined it is only in reference to other people. God, although a wonderful being the way I understand God, is not a person. A person, unless and until extraterrestrials are found, is a human being.

Reply
eshadas
Level 2
2,276. Re: The Pregnant Man; You've Gotta Love Him!!
Apr 9, 2008 6:56 PM   |   In response to: oakdragon

oakdragon - The Trouble With Islam Today is the same book as The Trouble With Islam - the author just changed the title a little after it was publish for a while. I'm very excited you did this! Please read and find me on the other board I created for these books. I'm sure you will find them beyond interesting. BTW, you can see the authors on youtube (not sure about Bruce Bawer). Happy reading!

Reply
eshadas
Level 2
2,277. Re: First TV Interview: The Pregnant Man
Apr 9, 2008 6:57 PM   |   In response to: oakdragon

oakdragon - thanks! Sounds like something Marianne Williamson would say, re: JC isn't the only path to G-d.

Reply
transman17
Level 1
2,278. Re: First TV Interview: The Pregnant Man
Apr 9, 2008 6:58 PM   |   In response to: cmb1952

You're calling another human being's life a joke? Do you always make fun of other people's pain? Charming...


Transman

Reply
jwb52z1
Level 3
2,279. Re: First TV Interview: The Pregnant Man
Apr 9, 2008 7:01 PM   |   In response to: natalie40

natalie40 wrote:

hakafos said: +"you don't like how the Bible was used against you, address that person. Not the deity. Please."+


WOW!!! I didn't know some Christians thought the word of God should be silenced. I am not ashamed of the word of God.


Is jwb gay... or just defending it?


I see lashing out at both Christians who dare to quote these passages, or lashing out at God, or both. That is because those lashing out are angry that God ever said what he did about that sin. You're not going to change the hatred towards God just by asking, because they are in the state in which GOD says they are.

*Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,c wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,d unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.*

Your question, in my opinion, is inappropriate toward me. I don't talk about myself online except with people I already know. Your suppositions about "lashing out" are just that, your opinino on the lashing out. I don't like, and I guess I should start putting this on quotation marks for proper wording, "The God of the Bible". That being is not worthy of respect. Any being who would say things like "Do what I say or you will burn in a lake of fire" and "Be sure you do it willingly and be happy about it or else" is not a being I feel is worthy of respect in any form whatsoever. That being is a maniac, in my opinion. That being said, I don't believe God is actually like that in reality. Quoting the Bible to the child of a preacher is useless, BTW, It's especially useless to those who find no absolute value in it like zealots do. No, I did not mean "I find absolutely no value in the Bible" because that's not true. The phrase "absolute value" has a different meaning. I think there are good general things in the Bible.

Reply