Man Gives Birth!!

Why on earth is there being such a fuss made of this *man* that has just given birth??

You'd think it was the second coming of Christ by the way the media are going on about it.

Let's get one thing straight: A man has not given birth.

No man has ever given birth. Men can not give birth. It really is as simple as that.

What has happened in this case is that a woman has given birth. WOW!! Big news for her I'm sure but is it really that big a deal for the rest of us? No it is not. It is in fact completely and utterly unremarkable.

This *man* was in fact born of the female gender, and in fact *he* kept all of *her* reproductive organs when *she* became a *he* (if you see what I mean)... And that's why *he* was able to give birth.

I would still be able to drive a car properly and take pride in my farts even if I decided to have my danglies cut off and I doubt that would make the papers, so why all the fuss about this bearded woman giving birth? Eh? What the hell's all that about??

It's just a load of hot air about nowt and I'm SICK of hearing about it!

i know, it's ridiculous....

ffs it doesn't have a penis, testicles, or any other part of genetalia specific to the male of the human species.
it does however still have a vagina, philopean (sp?) tubes, etc.....
and it's pregnant....

Surely this gives enough of a clue, even to the thickest of people (yes president bush, I'm talking to you) that it's indeed not a man giving birth or pregnant.


oh... and thank fcuk that I'm not the only one who feels that way!

Exact-a-mundo Rancido.

Very well said, and welcome to my rant.

More of a bearded lady I reckon.

When a man undergoes a sex change his meat and 2 veg are removed. This " man" still has female equipment, so I cannot see how it can be classed as a man

He probably can't even pee standing up.

Originally Posted by symonh2000

This " man" still has female equipment,

that's it right there.....

it (i refuse to call these things he or she..) is NOT a man as it has female genitalia.


omg would the world wake the hell up!

@CF: I forgot all about this topic until you started the thread, and i thank ya for it. I've not had a good rant in a while

The thing in question is a Freak of nature, its not a man, its not quite a woman, its a product of a sick society

This thread is going downhill fast, the world is not black and white.
Please be civil about all members of society.

Originally Posted by classicgal93

This thread is going downhill fast, the world is not black and white.
Please be civil about all members of society.

Your first sentance is quite right.

But the second, being civil about all members of society is too general and not right especially in civilised society, as society encompasses all including the crimes against minors etc, I dont beleive any request to be civil against all members of society could ever be upheld.

she is not a man, by definition if she still has all the female reproductive organs and the necessary hormone levels required for reproduction then she can only be 'male' by choice which isnt the same thing.

she is a woman who dresses as a man and calls herself Fred or something like that. which is fine but that does not make her a man.

the story is B*****ks

Originally Posted by jabberwocky

she is not a man, by definition if she still has all the female reproductive organs and the necessary hormone levels required for reproduction then she can only be 'male' by choice which isnt the same thing.

she is a woman who dresses as a man and calls herself Fred or something like that. which is fine but that does not make her a man.

To be a man she would need an "addadictome"

Originally Posted by jabberwocky

she is a woman who dresses as a man and calls herself Fred or something like that. which is fine but that does not make her a man.

nice summary

g

Originally Posted by symonh2000

To be a man she would need an "addadictome"

The point is that - whatever your opinion - he is LEGALLY a man. Some may think the law is wrong but that alone does not change it.

Originally Posted by jabberwocky

she is not a man, by definition if she still has all the female reproductive organs and the necessary hormone levels required for reproduction then she can only be 'male' by choice which isnt the same thing.

she is a woman who dresses as a man and calls herself Fred or something like that. which is fine but that does not make her a man.

totally agree

Originally Posted by PaulR

The point is that - whatever your opinion - he is LEGALLY a man. Some may think the law is wrong but that alone does not change it.

that doesn't make it a man imo

Originally Posted by PaulR

The point is that - whatever your opinion - he is LEGALLY a man. Some may think the law is wrong but that alone does not change it.

Legally maybe, medically she is a woman.

OK.. Don't really care if I get shot down here as It's MY opinion...

As long as he is a good member of society, I see no problem with her choice to change to being a man..
The fact that He's having a baby just means he had bad timing or wanted some cash off the papers. Either way that is HIS business, and all of us can chose to read/hear about it or to turn over.

Those who were saying it's an abomination should think long and hard if they would feel the same way if that was there son or daughter.. Because I know I would love my son whatever he chooses to do, as long as he's happy, and a good person..

Not surre about all this.............. a surefire way to be certain of gender..........

Q: Can he/she/it parallel park........????

Yes - Definately a man.
or
No - Probably a woman, chimpanzee, gerbil or penguin.

Cheers To All
Peter

Originally Posted by Green_Rizla

Not surre about all this.............. a surefire way to be certain of gender..........

Q: Can he/she/it parallel park........????

Yes - Definately a man.
or
No - Probably a woman, chimpanzee, gerbil or penguin.

Cheers To All
Peter

Hmmm .. I can parallel park.. So would that mean I have to be a man ??

Originally Posted by rancido64

that doesn't make it a man imo