Here we go again. Just because a woman is “reassigned” (what a ridiculous term) as a male and allowed to be considered legally a man, that doesn’t change her biology. We saw this in the USA when big media made a big deal out of a legal male/biological woman giving birth after artificial insemination—still had the female sex organs, don’t you know.
Now, in the UK, a similar situation after a sex change operation that apparently did not involve the removal of the man’s uterus. From the Daily Mail story:
A British man is believed to have given birth, causing an ethical controversy. The ‘male mother’ started life as a woman but underwent a sex change. He is thought to have had the baby last year, while living as a man. Medical experts said that if the womb is not removed in sex change surgery, there is nothing to stop a woman who becomes a man from having a child.
Oh please. We can pretend all we want, but “legal” isn’t “biological.” Society has decided to allow people to change their legal genders, alter their primary and secondary sexual characteristics, and live as the opposite sex because that makes them happy and fulfilled. But in some matters, biology (still) remains destiny (as they say). A woman had a child, not a man.
Hmmm. If he wanted to give birth, doesn’t that mean that part if his self identity remained female? Ow! My head hurts.
