Glamour cover and why it’s nuts.

[ModernDiogenes]

That this is a pregnant transgender MAN is not deniable.

That a statement being made is that it’s proof that males can get pregnant is just plain ridiculous based NOT on any social ideology but in specific science. This is NOT a depiction of a pregnant male. He was not born with genetic XX chromosomes and thus, while he may very well identify as a man and that should be respected, he is decidedly female in the scientific/biological sense .

The segment of the transgender community (which I actually think is rather small) and it’s manic fringe supporters (much larger group) have to move off this as they are doing Transgender Rights work no favor by pushing an anti-the-science position on a par with “The World is Flat” folk.

 

[Lisa]

So now you are outraged by the cover of Glamour magazine in the UK? Is there anything that doesn't outrage you?

BTW, The idea of a pregnant trans man is 15 years old.

He was famous for being 'the pregnant man.' Here's where Thomas Beatie is now

His pregnancy was a media sensation in 2008. Today, Beatie lives a relatively quiet life with his wife and children, working as a stockbroker in Phoenix.

news.yahoo.com

 

[Lursa]

To me, since they are legally considered men, their legal status can be considered in many arguments based on the law that we see here on the forum.

 

[HonestJoe]

That a statement being made is that it’s proof that males can get pregnant is just plain ridiculous based NOT on any social ideology but in specific science.

Is that statement being made? It doesn't appear to be being made by the cover pictures alone and a brief look a the coverage seems to be clear that it's specifically talking about him as a transgender man and his fairly novel situation (which is why it's news in the first place). I don't see why that would be taken to suggest that cis men or even men in general can typically become pregnant.

 

[BirdinHand]

That a statement being made is that it’s proof that males can get pregnant is just plain ridiculous based NOT on any social ideology but in specific science. This is NOT a depiction of a pregnant male. He was not born with genetic XX chromosomes and thus, while he may very well identify as a man and that should be respected, he is decidedly female in the scientific/biological sense .

XX = biological female
XY = biological male

If you're going to go on a tirade about chromosomes, you should probably make sure that you know which are male and which are female.

And did I miss where they mentioned chromosomes or cared about them? You didn't link a source.

 

[Lisa]

XX = biological female
XY = biological male

If you're going to go on a tirade about chromosomes, you should probably make sure that you know which are male and which are female.

And did I miss where they claimed this person had XX chromosomes? You didn't link a source.

There are some people who only open their mouth long enough to change feet.

 

[Peter]

How about you just not read the magazine?

I don't and I don't care what they have on the cover.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

So now you are outraged by the cover of Glamour magazine in the UK? Is there anything that doesn't outrage you?

BTW, The idea of a pregnant trans man is 15 years old.

He was famous for being 'the pregnant man.' Here's where Thomas Beatie is now

His pregnancy was a media sensation in 2008. Today, Beatie lives a relatively quiet life with his wife and children, working as a stockbroker in Phoenix.

news.yahoo.com

I’m not outraged. I am not anti-Transgender or transphobic either.

IF one is pushing an anti-science position and they take umbrage at my pointing out things like the atmosphere isn’t actually blue, but blue light has shorter waves so it’s scattered more than other frequencies of light or that the world, despite what anyone says to the contrary, isn’t actually flat…

Sorry, that’s a their problem, not a my problem.

A transgendered F-M person is a man. He is not female. There is a difference. The difference is science.

Not acknowledging the scientific specifics isn’t helping the transgendered cause.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

To me, since they are legally considered men, their legal status can be considered in many arguments based on the law that we see here on the forum.

Man in the sociological sense is not equivalent to male in the biological sense. It’s science denial..

It is hypocritical to accept the science of climate change but deny it on this. Science is science all the time. 24/7/365.

 

[Lisa]

I’m not outraged. I am not anti-Transgender or transphobic either.

IF one is pushing an anti-science position and they take umbrage at my pointing out things like the atmosphere isn’t actually blue, but blue light has shorter waves so it’s scattered more than other frequencies of light or that the world, despite what anyone says to the contrary, isn’t;t actually flat…

Sorry, that’s a term problem, not a my problem.

A transgendered F-M person is a man. He is not female. There is a difference. The difference is science.

Not acknowledging the scientific specifics isn’t helping the transgendered cause.

The idea that a transman can get pregnant just shows that sex and gender aren't as binary as many people might think they are. Emotionally he is a guy because of his male gender identity, but he has a body that still allow him to give birth if he goes off of testosterone for a few months and has not had a hysterectomy.


There are many trans-females who would love to be able to get pregnant and give birth. The re is current ongoing medical research on that subject.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

How about you just not read the magazine?

I don't and I don't care what they have on the cover.

That’s not the point folks.

Which is that science denial ain’t helping the cause. There is a fraction of ya’ll who are making this boulder harder to push up that hill by increasing its mass and steepening the incline.

You really ought to knock it off.

 

[madman]

View attachment 67450790


That this is a pregnant transgender MAN is not deniable.

That a statement being made is that it’s proof that males can get pregnant is just plain ridiculous based NOT on any social ideology but in specific science. This is NOT a depiction of a pregnant male. He was not born with genetic XX chromosomes and thus, while he may very well identify as a man and that should be respected, he is decidedly female in the scientific/biological sense .

The segment of the transgender community (which I actually think is rather small) and it’s manic fringe supporters (much larger group) have to move off this as they are doing Transgender Rights work no favor by pushing an anti-the-science position on a par with “The World is Flat” folk.

of all things to get worked up about that DONT CONCERN YOU.

***EYE ROLL****

 

[Lursa]

Man in the sociological sense is not equivalent to male in the biological sense. It’s science denial..

It is hypocritical to accept the science of climate change but deny it on this. Science is science all the time. 24/7/365.

I was discussing only the legal status.

 

[Peter]

That’s not the point folks.

Which is that science denial ain’t helping the cause. There is a fraction of ya’ll who are making this boulder harder to push up that hill by increasing its mass and steepening the incline.

You really ought to knock it off.

By not caring what a magazine I don't read has on the cover?

Why do you care? How exactly does the cover affect you in the slightest?

 

[zincwarrior]

If the market doesn't like the cover, it won't sell. If it does, it will. Here endeth the lesson.

 

[mrjurrs]

View attachment 67450790


That this is a pregnant transgender MAN is not deniable.

That a statement being made is that it’s proof that males can get pregnant is just plain ridiculous based NOT on any social ideology but in specific science. This is NOT a depiction of a pregnant male. He was not born with genetic XX chromosomes and thus, while he may very well identify as a man and that should be respected, he is decidedly female in the scientific/biological sense .

The segment of the transgender community (which I actually think is rather small) and it’s manic fringe supporters (much larger group) have to move off this as they are doing Transgender Rights work no favor by pushing an anti-the-science position on a par with “The World is Flat” folk

Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it is not happening. Biological males can't get pregnant. A transgender man can.

 

[BirdinHand]

What's amazing to me is that people don't bother to READ and then just make things up out of thin air.

Man in the sociological sense is not equivalent to male in the biological sense. It’s science denial..

Nowhere has this individual claimed to be anything other than a TRANS MALE. They aren't claiming to be a biological man.

Not in the article posted, not in interviews, etc.

 

[mrjurrs]

I’m not outraged. I am not anti-Transgender or transphobic either.

IF one is pushing an anti-science position and they take umbrage at my pointing out things like the atmosphere isn’t actually blue, but blue light has shorter waves so it’s scattered more than other frequencies of light or that the world, despite what anyone says to the contrary, isn’t actually flat…

Sorry, that’s a their problem, not a my problem.

A transgendered F-M person is a man. He is not female. There is a difference. The difference is science.

Not acknowledging the scientific specifics isn’t helping the transgendered cause.

Your interpretation of science is really lacking. Try harder.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

The idea that a transman can get pregnant just shows that sex and gender aren't as binary as many people might think they are. Emorioanlly he is a guy but he has a body that still allow him to give birth if he goes of testosterone for a few moineths and has not had a hysterectomy.

If that is what’s being stated I’d have no basis for comment, and I wouldn’t.

You lean into it yourself further into the paragraph. Gender may not be binary but sex is, I assure you. The SCIENCE says so.

There are many trans-females who would love to be able to get pregnant and give birth. The re is current ongoing medical research on that subject.

I’m sure folks are, and if they do then science will evolve and document the distinction between a biological created male or female and a medically created male or female. Just as it will when and if we ever successfully clone human beings, at which point science will evolve again and denote the difference between biologically created humans and medically created humans.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Your interpretation of science is really lacking. Try harder.

Because you say so? If you have a valid point, make it.

 

[BirdinHand]

If that is what’s being stated I’d have no basis for comment, and I wouldn’t.

You lean into it yourself further into the paragraph. Gender may not be binary but sex is, I assure you. The SCIENCE says so.



I’m sure folks are, and if they do then science will evolve and document the distinction between a biological created male or female and a medically created make or female. Just as it will when and UC we ever successfully clone human beings, at which point science will evolve again and denote the difference between biologically created humans and medically created humans.

You’re the one asserting that Logan has claimed to be anything other than trans.

Can you show where they’ve ever made the claim of being a biological male?

 

[ModernDiogenes]

XX = biological female
XY = biological male

If you're going to go on a tirade about chromosomes, you should probably make sure that you know which are male and which are female.

And did I miss where they mentioned chromosomes or cared about them? You didn't link a source.

A typo mistake on inserting “not”. Really? You are so much better than that. Why did you go there?

 

[mrjurrs]

Because you say so? If you have a valid point, make it.

Because it is science.

There is a difference between biological sex and gender.

 

[BirdinHand]

Your interpretation of science is really lacking. Try harder.

You didn’t read the article in the digital copy of Glamour UK nor any other interviews or you wouldn’t be claiming that Logan has EVER stated they are biologically a man.

You posted the cover and faux rage…without basis.

 

[BirdinHand]

A typo mistake on inserting “not”. Really? You are so much better than that. Why did you go there?

Because Logan has never claimed to be a biological man, nor did Glamour UK.

So why are you outraged?