Transgender man gives birth after getting pregnant with FEMALE sperm donor

Jezabella said:

You're comparing serial killers to transgender folks?

You just killed your own credibility, as if the rest of your post didn't confirm it as well.

This is my last post to you. I don't have time for idiocy.

Click to expand...

It's all psychological though,right? Or only when convenient?

NBB said:

A man and a woman had a child, this is surprising somehow? why.

Click to expand...

Where does it say this in the article?

Based on the comments, I feel I have overlooked that.

Kaon said:

Where does it say this in the article?

Based on the comments, I feel I have overlooked that.

Click to expand...

Is obvious isn't it?, there is not other way. you need an uterus with all that inside, and sperm from a man so...

Mark 10:6 (KJV)

6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

And in FACT nothing can change a male cell into a female cell apart from in the mind of those under a strong delusion

SummerMadness said:

QFT
I don't get why folks are getting mad about a person bringing life into this world that they will love and raise to be a respectful, productive human being.

Click to expand...

It is the same case with a single person who sets out with to have a child and 'plans' to not have the other parent in the relationship, however they plan it, it is 'planning' to have a child 'without' the natural or preferred biological parent (a married couple who wish to use a sperm or egg donor, is taking the same risk, and it is 'unfortunate' and i'm not going to argue with that - it is the whole switching sexes and then then doing what you were in the first place, then claiming its not - is my argument)

Still: whenever a child is raised by anyone other than the two biological parents it is because of 'some' tragedy, or unfortunate situation (I have never heard of one that isn't unfortunate). Being raised by your own 'two' biological parents is the best of all worlds (note of course being adopted or raised by people other than your own two parents 'can' be 'wonderful and great' yet, this is not the 'best' scenario)

Nor are we saying that an abusive parent situation is better; because that also is 'a tragic situation' - and it should be 'stopped' - and the child removed from the abusive parent, or divorce, but to your point - we don't start out by 'purposefully' bringing a child into a less than ideal beginning. Even if the two biological parents are not the most perfect loving parents it seems most children are better off and would rather be with their imperfect parents, as blood relation is generally and arguably the strongest bond in families.

Kaon said:

Where does it say this in the article?

Based on the comments, I feel I have overlooked that.

Click to expand...

Since a child was produced,there was need of an egg and a sperm.Men have sperm,women have eggs.It may not implicitly state that in the article,but it is realistic to believe one was born a male,and one a female.

muichimotsu said:

Don't try to deflect away from confronting your own issues onto us? And assuming insulting is the height of insecurity, seems to me. At best we're saying you're engaging in splitting, a phenomenon of black and white thinking.

Click to expand...

It was actually sarcasm,I don't need assumption when it is so ridiculously laid out before me.
Repent and believe ,really is all that's left to say to you.

NBB said:

Is obvious isn't it?, there is not other way. you need an uterus with all that inside, and sperm from a man so...

Click to expand...

Well, there has been a way since 2007 to reproduce sperm from stem cells - the right funding in science can be transformative over 12 years (part of my first post).

That is why I am asking where in the article it says one of them was a male?

Kaon said:

Well, there has been a way since 2007 to reproduce sperm from stem cells - the right funding in science can be transformative over 12 years (part of my first post).

That is why I am asking where in the article it says one of them was a male?

Click to expand...

You say they can produce sperm from female cells?
That wouldn't mess up a child?

Secondly, my argument with the whole trans homosexual culture, is not the 'authentic' situations that may be the result or cause of their biology, it is the over the top promotion of gay and LGBT(Q) culture (and the subsequent and fashionable hate on anyone who would 'question' the promotion of LGBTQ culture).

I believe introducing and promoting the gay lifestyle (on young people especially) - may result in them missing out on the greatest thing any person can become in this life - that is becoming a parent (and or a 'family'). Young people are joining, becoming, and living a gay lifestyle when they are young and often missing the natural developments (and possible happiness) that comes from a humans own natural yearning to become a parent and have their own children. I know that some people can be born with out the natural means to reproduce, but 'most' people 'are' given the natural means to find someone of the opposite sex and reproduce - steering young people the opposite way at earlier and earlier ages, and at impressionable ages, is 'tragic' to their ever enjoying what they as adults will most likely want or 'miss' (as this OP articles scenario exhibits)

Is it now 'wrong' to even 'promote the idea' of having your own children? Or having a marriage and having a family, in the most natural way possible, as the best thing for human beings and our species??

NBB said:

You say they can produce sperm from female cells?
That wouldn't mess up a child?

Click to expand...

I don't know what it does to the child, but yes sperm, by way of stem cells, by way of bone marrow can be created from one gender. This was possible in 2007, so I can only speculate what has been done with proper funding and five years; it has been 12 years since the public was told this technique was a possibility.

Will science render men unnecessary?

Babies from Bone Marrow

Bone stem cells turned into primitive sperm cells

These are some of the surviving links I was able to find that publicly introduces a technique for turning bone marrow into sperm - from 2007. That is why I am asking where it says either was born biological male. Otherwise, this technique would definitely be possible "without a drop of sperm".

Cis.jd said:

The point I was making is that there are no books back then that use the word gender to be anything other than a biological male or female.

Click to expand...

the problem is that "back then" the genetic components (xx,xy) were not even known. Gender and sex decoupled when sociology and psychology studies group and individual relations. Back then, psychology and sociology didn't exist yet and mental health was still seen as a primarily spiritual matter.

Again, this is reference to the other persons statements that the current meaning of gender was defined and understood even back then. Im citing known science books as old as possible in return, i need to see the term being used the way the left has defined before this decade.

Click to expand...

You keep saying " The left" but as I mentioned the only ideologies that have a problem with the concept of gender tend to be traditionalist right ideals. Libertarian right ideals seem to not insist on strict gender definitions. As far as books and studies, I can find some papers and studies for you after I return from my vacation. I know there has been research that stretches back to the 60s on this topic.

Ok. When a baby is born, will the hospital document on the birth certificate whether the baby is male or female? How do they do that? Seriously, what is the point of doing that anyway now?

Click to expand...

Usually it's based on genitals, personally I think it's just a tradition that has stuck around and it's not a necessary documentation, but it's just there so we as a nation continue it for census reasons.

Sure. Im not denying that, today, gender has been redefined to be a social construct - who the person is inside his/her head. My arguments are saying that social constructs are or just believing you are internally/psychologically aren’t facts.

Click to expand...

It comes off to me that you dont really understand what social constructs are and how they function. I'm not sure what you mean by facts, because you are taking how a person presents and identifies based on societal constructs of gender. Genetic prescriptions such as XX, and XY primarily function to tell the body to develop, but dont dictate the social norms. Such as clothing, make up, demeanor, toys, jobs, etc. Those are constructs reinforced by society and the performance of these expectations seem to be the heart of Feminism, trans ideology, and Non binary people.

What about people who identify as a different age. Such as a 23 year old, why cant he/she identify as a 50 yr old. That person can be just as mature and probably even at the same health.. is it because of biological reasons here?

Click to expand...

The difference here is that you are talking about a measurement of time (age) vs a societal constructions on what makes a person a man/women.

You are the one who hasnt read much. First of all, this segment on color is incomplete because its followed up in another response in where i am asking for the reasoning behind the change of blue and pink being identified for boys and girls.

Click to expand...

I read the entire message, I didn't quote the entire grouping because I dont see the point in arguing tangents when I find your foundation to be in error.

I used to work as a concept artist for Lego back in 2014. You also didn't understand my argument. It takes more work and conceptualism to design toys for girls than for boys. Because based on the norm, boys just end up having their toys go on a battle. With girls on the other hand there imagination is much more deeper because their is an actual story behind it.

Click to expand...

No, I fully understood your argument. You are arguing about the norm, norms are reinforced by cultural/societal constructs. Since you have worked for LEGO, you are probably also aware that for the majority of LEGO's history there was no specific gender targeting. However in the late 70s and early 80s restrictions on how toys could be marketed were relaxed. Based societal expectations of men and women toy companies and TV reinforced several aspects of culture through marketing. A lot of female franchises were created by accident because there was such a misunderstanding on how to market towards women. I'll read the article in a little bit. Thank you for sharing. I did skim them however, what I find interesting is that the article mentioned that the toys were played with based on expectations of gender roles. Does this not also validate the testimonies of trans people that claimed to identify with traditional masculine and femenine roles and how they knew they were different?

You are free to join in on responding to the video link of Joe Rogan, Sam Haris, Majeem on this.

Click to expand...

I'm a fan of the Joe Rogan Podcast, and I used to watch videos by Harris back in the days of YouTube Atheism. I'm not sure why I should give much credence to Harriss's stances however since Harris isn't really an expert in this field. Harris argues from a nueroscience perspective, while most expertise around Trans and Non Binary phenomenon is based in sociology.

Sorry to keep repeating myself but...what do you expect in a secular culture?

Long before I heard first word "transgender", I remember hearing a story about a Filipino man in a remote village in The Philippines who got pregnant from having sex with another man.

I'll let the armchair experts, black/white thinkers figure it out how god's creation of a man conceived a baby "the natural way".

__________________________________________________

I feel there's a touch of narcissism when someone is unable to process possibilities and situations because it is foreign in their life. It's like "if I don't know about it, it can't be true". And although certainly not unique to religious folks, it is unsurprising that those with a specific god tend to fall into this category. I've seen people who were raised in a certain religion be absolutely rigid about having the one true god and that everyone else is wrong and will perish.

I wish those with such strong opinions against transgenderism, claiming it to be a mental health problem, could transfer some of that thought energy towards how protecting one's right to own guns, especially an AR15, is an ACTUAL sinister form of mental disease.

I mean, other than some issues that need to be ironed out so that everyone has a safe place in this world, transgenders do no harm, absolutely no harm.

I would rather enter a public bathroom where transgender women are welcome than enter a house of someone with an AR15.

Our values are skewed, people.

Jezabella said:

Long before I heard first word "transgender", I remember hearing a story about a Filipino man in a remote village in The Philippines who got pregnant from having sex with another man.

I'll let the armchair experts, black/white thinkers figure it out how god's creation of a man conceived a baby "the natural way".

__________________________________________________

I feel there's a touch of narcissism when someone is unable to process possibilities and situations because it is foreign in their life. It's like "if I don't know about it, it can't be true". And although certainly not unique to religious folks, it is unsurprising that those with a specific god tend to fall into this category. I've seen people who were raised in a certain religion be absolutely rigid about having the one true god and that everyone else is wrong and will perish.

I wish those with such strong opinions against transgenderism, claiming it to be a mental health problem, could transfer some of that thought energy towards how protecting one's right to own guns, especially an AR15, is an ACTUAL sinister form of mental disease.

I mean, other than some issues that need to be ironed out so that everyone has a safe place in this world, transgenders do no harm, absolutely no harm.

I would rather enter a public bathroom where transgender women are welcome than enter a house of someone with an AR15.

Our values are skewed, people.

Click to expand...

Whataboutguns? Well AR15s aren't the topic here....

As for "trans people do no harm"....what are you saying? There are no trans criminals? They never victimize anyone?

Steve97 said:

Sorry to keep repeating myself but...what do you expect in a secular culture?

Click to expand...

You mean in a secular culture where people THINK beyond the indoctrination of black/white?

You mean in a secular culture where people are less likely to be intolerant of others who are different than they are and of ideas that are new to them?

Jezabella said:

You mean in a secular culture where people THINK beyond the indoctrination of black/white?

You mean in a secular culture where people are less likely to be intolerant of others who are different than they are and of ideas that are new to them?

Click to expand...

Secular definition = denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.

Kenny'sID said:

Was that thew best you could do to avoid replying?

Anyone that wanted to see, would have seen it wasn't the serial killer I was comparing, it was the situation, could have been any disturbed individual that had bad thoughts at an early age. But I guess you weren't prepared to deal with that or any other of my reasonable replies in that post or those to come, so....whatever excuse you choose is fine with me.

Click to expand...

Thoughts of killing are not remotely comparable (or damaging in nature) to thinking that your gender identity is not in line with your biological sex (as if the two are necessarily linked in any meaningful way, which you and others have failed to demonstrate)