WTF Stories of the Week - Page 6

Chernabog · 04-03-2008, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

Few concerns though - what happens if they can't get to the hospital in time to have a C section? What will happen to the breast milk that develops?

I'm pretty sure the person in question didn't change anything "down there", so a vaginal birth isn't out of the question. And they DID have a double masectomy, so there is no tissue to produce milk, I don't think.

alphabassettgrrl · 04-03-2008, 08:11 PM

The trans community is upset mostly by Tomas going public. They could lose a lot of ground from the public's fear in response to the pregnancy. Child custody, rights to transition, control over their lives and their right to live as they feel they need to.

My friend wrote the Advocate response. I'm proud of ... well, I know Levi as "her" but he prefers "him".

BarTopDancer · 04-03-2008, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chernabog

I'm pretty sure the person in question didn't change anything "down there", so a vaginal birth isn't out of the question. And they DID have a double masectomy, so there is no tissue to produce milk, I don't think.

If he didn't change anything "down there" then how can he legally be a man and legally married to a[nother] biological woman? I'm totally un-knowledgeable in this area.

Bornieo: Fully Loaded · 04-04-2008, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SzczerbiakManiac

What the F? Did she mistakenly open the freekin' Lost Ark?

I bet there are 6 or 7 hillside homes stuck under those puppies...

Cadaverous Pallor · 04-04-2008, 08:34 AM

The headline should have been "Transgender Person Pregnant."

It's hard to say "That person is a man" when that person actually has a uterus. This isn't a matter of being insensitive, it's a matter of fact. I'd say "That person identifies as a man".

However, it would seem to me that if you want to remain a viable mother then you want to be a woman. The idea that you can be both simultaneously just sounds like they don't really identify as anything and they want to play both sides. If that's the case, they shouldn't claim they identify as a man, they should claim that they identify as both, which is fine by me, really. It's none of my business whether he/she wants to be masculine, feminine, both, or asexual.

mousepod · 04-04-2008, 08:37 AM

With apologies to NA.

Morrigoon · 04-07-2008, 03:30 PM

Have you guys seen this yet? (video link)

Holy crap... a town of 1951 people, and they're removing over *400* children from this polygamy compound!

Here's the text story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23993440/ (talks more about the polygamy arrests than what a big deal it is to remove a quarter of the population of a town and take them into state custody - which the video link does)

Alex · 04-07-2008, 04:17 PM

Can anybody point to more information about the initial call to authorities? So far I've not seen much detail but it sounds like they don't know who the girl is.

While I don't really approve of this group (I'm all for polygamy, just not polygamy involving children as the marrying parties) but putting hundreds of children and detaining scores of adults based on an anonymous phone call seems a bit of a stretch. So I'm hoping I just haven't seen that information.

Morrigoon · 04-07-2008, 04:26 PM

Because it involves sexual abuse of a minor, they can't release the name of the girl. The impression I get though is that they don't know (or haven't revealed) if they've found her.

The women who left did so of their own accord (to whatever extent "voluntarily" is, when authorities are involved).

The impression I get is that some of the underage "kids" removed have kids of their own, also removed. So I'd say there is sufficient evidence there.

Strangler Lewis · 04-07-2008, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

If he didn't change anything "down there" then how can he legally be a man and legally married to a[nother] biological woman? I'm totally un-knowledgeable in this area.

What is the law in California on defining men and women for marriage? Military service? Affirmative action? Is it based on chromosomes? Parts?

04-03-2008, 08:11 PM	#52
alphabassettgrrl Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,978	The trans community is upset mostly by Tomas going public. They could lose a lot of ground from the public's fear in response to the pregnancy. Child custody, rights to transition, control over their lives and their right to live as they feel they need to. My friend wrote the Advocate response. I'm proud of ... well, I know Levi as "her" but he prefers "him". __________________ Why cycling? Anything [sport] that had to do with a ball, I wasn't very good at. -Lance Armstrong
	Submit to Quotes

04-04-2008, 08:34 AM	#55
Cadaverous Pallor ohhhh baby Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parental Bliss Posts: 12,364	The headline should have been "Transgender Person Pregnant." It's hard to say "That person is a man" when that person actually has a uterus. This isn't a matter of being insensitive, it's a matter of fact. I'd say "That person identifies as a man". However, it would seem to me that if you want to remain a viable mother then you want to be a woman. The idea that you can be both simultaneously just sounds like they don't really identify as anything and they want to play both sides. If that's the case, they shouldn't claim they identify as a man, they should claim that they identify as both, which is fine by me, really. It's none of my business whether he/she wants to be masculine, feminine, both, or asexual. __________________ The second star to the right shines in the night for you
	Submit to Quotes

04-04-2008, 08:37 AM	#56
mousepod You broke your Ramadar! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,635	With apologies to NA. __________________ "Give the public everything you can give them, keep the place as clean as you can keep it, keep it friendly" - Walt Disney
	Submit to Quotes

04-07-2008, 03:30 PM	#57
Morrigoon I throw stones at houses Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Location: Location Posts: 9,534	Have you guys seen this yet? (video link) Holy crap... a town of 1951 people, and they're removing over 400 children from this polygamy compound! Here's the text story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23993440/ (talks more about the polygamy arrests than what a big deal it is to remove a quarter of the population of a town and take them into state custody - which the video link does) __________________ http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge
	Submit to Quotes

04-07-2008, 04:17 PM	#58
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Can anybody point to more information about the initial call to authorities? So far I've not seen much detail but it sounds like they don't know who the girl is. While I don't really approve of this group (I'm all for polygamy, just not polygamy involving children as the marrying parties) but putting hundreds of children and detaining scores of adults based on an anonymous phone call seems a bit of a stretch. So I'm hoping I just haven't seen that information.
	Submit to Quotes

04-07-2008, 04:26 PM	#59
Morrigoon I throw stones at houses Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Location: Location Posts: 9,534	Because it involves sexual abuse of a minor, they can't release the name of the girl. The impression I get though is that they don't know (or haven't revealed) if they've found her. The women who left did so of their own accord (to whatever extent "voluntarily" is, when authorities are involved). The impression I get is that some of the underage "kids" removed have kids of their own, also removed. So I'd say there is sufficient evidence there. __________________ http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge
	Submit to Quotes