There is at least one transgendered man who gave birth to a child. The birthfather’s, partner also a transgendered man, wrote an article about their life in the Village Voice. In his article he told the story of two men who were born women (one of whom , is a transgender activist and writer of lesbian sadomasochistic pornography), who are raising a child together (that one of them gave birth, in the context of a committed, but open relationship). This narrative did not become a media hit.
In The Advocate, Thomas Beattie, a pregnant transgendered man who is legally married to a woman, wrote an article about his experience. The legal status of his relationship, indicates that society (vis a vi the law) accepts what they are doing as legitimate, by granting them the rights and privileges of a male-female couple. It seems, that “we” are willing to accept this “male pregnancy.” The “pregnant man” will be on Oprah tomorrow (4/3/08)– it doesn’t get more benign than daytime television. This apparently “subversive” story turned into a feel-good feature. Why?
The answer, is likely to be same as for another enigma. I personally never understood why the law allows sex-changes but not gay marriage. Looking at the media reaction to the transgendered men described above, a possible answer surfaces. The desire to be “normal” is given much weight. For instance, in his Advocate Article, Beattie wrote that his wife, did not tell her family that her husband is a transman. He describes the way people saw them and as a normal couple. Desiring to appear “normal” seems to be the ticket to equality under the law, or at least a certain degree of social acceptance. (Another example of this might be the attitude towards fat people who want to lose weight, and those who do not. The moral scorn towards a fat person eating a donut is palatable)
The outcome of privileging normalcy is a society, and thus a legal system that rewards individuals who appear within the normative spectrum. This gives rise to the weird fact that it is illegal for two women to marry each other, and thus “appear” different. However, if one of them for reasons entirely her own desires to take on the male gender, and have a “legal” sex change, then once the couple looks normal, they can be legally married.
This is not a critic of people who choose to have a sex change, but of legal system that rewards normative appearance, and thus presumably the normative desires that are believed to be behind that appearance.
Because of this legal trend, I wonder if Thomas Beati, now that he is a pregnant, and thus no longer “appears” normal at least temporarily, will experience problems with the law, or will the nine month deviation be forgiven, since the baby goes back to a nuclear family?
In Iraq, it seems that while gay men and lesbian women are prosecuted by the official authourity, transsexuals can legally switch their gender through surgery, and even get a government interest free loans to help pay for the surgery.
The blatant, visible injustice of this transformed Iran into a country with the highest percentage of gender reassignment surgery outside of Thailand.
While the level of injustice is certainly different, both in the US and in Iran, the legal system is set up in order to encourage gay men and lesbian women to have sex change surgeries. This sacrifice is one I can easily imagine people making. What is more important to be the right gender or love the right person/have the right sexual orientation? If I was put in a position to make that decision, I would have no problem changing my gender.
Hell, if I for some reason I had to spend my life in Iran, perhaps I would have a sex change, just so I could live as man in Iranian society.
The bottom line of this rant is simple: It is ridiculously unfair to create a legal system that privileges people having expensive and painful surgeries as a means of upholding the normative.
I applaud Beattie, and all the other transmen who are claiming their right to give birth to their own children, and thus undermining the logic (a sex change can be used a means of achieving normalcy) behind the injustice of legalizing sex change, while prohibiting gay marriage.
