Female Breast on National TV!

[hairyhomer]

Many people were offend by the female breast when shown on national TV during the supper bowl, but now ones seems to care about the female breast on Oprah, and just about every news channel when it is said to be a pregnant man. Are those not female breast just reduced by a surgical procedure and giving male hormone shots? So now they have become male breast on a female body (with female organs still intact) so it's legal to show on national TV with no FCC fines? I am confused!

[nacktman]

Many people were offend by the female breast when shown on national TV during the supper bowl, but now ones seems to care about the female breast on Oprah, and just about every news channel when it is said to be a pregnant man. Are those not female breast just reduced by a surgical procedure and giving male hormone shots? So now they have become male breast on a female body (with female organs still intact) so it's legal to show on national TV with no FCC fines? I am confused!

Prudes and Prudism can do that to a body, can't they!?:rolleyes:

[Stu2630]

Are those not female breast just reduced by a surgical procedure and giving male hormone shots?

You could reduce any part of the sex-change process down to their surgical and hormonal elements. You can call a male to female transsexual a man with his penis cut off and given oestrogen and deny him recognition of his reassignment. You could do something similar to a female to male transsexual, too. But we don't. We give precedence to a person's perception of their own identity and allow them to live as full members of the sex with which they identify.

A person's sex is more than just about their biology: it has social and cultural implications and that's why Janet Jackson's breast was unacceptable and the pregnant man's was.

Stu

[prairieboy]

I think Janet Jackson's breast was unacceptable. because it was a cheap promotional ploy. If she had stood there topless, or naked, for the whole number, no problem. (okay, no problem for me)

[nacktman]

A person's sex is more than just about their biology: it has social and cultural implications and that's why Janet Jackson's breast was unacceptable and the pregnant man's was.

Again a call for an Anatomy and Physiology class is in order as well as a Cultural Anthropology class.:rolleyes:

[Home Nudist]

Slightly off the nipple topic:

In my opinion, transgendered people can call themselves anything they want. I don't judge them. With the aid of hormones and plastic surgery, they are only cosmetically male or female. In their chromosomes and DNA, they are the sex they were born.

So, I don't understand the fascination with this "pregnant man." He is cosmetically a man from the waste up (and that's his right, if he feels he's a man), and naturally a woman from the waste down, and has chosen to keep the female reproductive organs with which he was born.

So, why is it such a big surprise that he's pregnant? He's still a physically a woman who has chosen to alter his body to appear to be a man.

An aside: If he completely identifies as a male, I find his choice to carry a child and give birth to be a bit puzzling. I would think that "he" would not want that. I'm so confused! :dizzy:

[Stu2630]

Home Nudist


With the aid of hormones and plastic surgery, they are only cosmetically male or female. In their chromosomes and DNA, they are the sex they were born.You are falling into the old black-and-white trap when identifying a person's sex: it is far more than just their last pair of chromosomes. Your sex is a whole "life package" and some people's get confused in all sorts of ways. Some people are genetically normal, yet they are attracted to members of their own sex. That has to be an aberration in biological terms, yet we would never deny those people their sexuality. Some people are born with one or other intersex syndrome, and that can even result kids raised as little girls reaching puberty and then suddenly virilizing and eventually becoming virtually indistinguishable from adult men (even fathering children!). And some people have a "brain sex" which is incompatible with their chromosome sex - they are "wired up" as the opposite sex to their physiology and have the tendencies, abilities and foibles of that brain sex. When they are examined on an MRI scanner, this can actually be seen and measured.

I know from years of bitter experience that the most reliable way to identify a person's sex is not to look at their genitals or even their DNA - you should use the "duck test" - if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck!

Stu

[Home Nudist]

Stu,

I knew this would bring you out of the woodwork.

I realize that sex and sexuality runs on a continuum. There is no black and white, and don't let your "personal experiences" twist what I am saying.

Stu:

Some people are born with one or other intersex syndrome, and that can even result kids raised as little girls reaching puberty and then suddenly virilizing and eventually becoming virtually indistinguishable from adult men (even fathering children!).

If you are implying that this was your experience, you, in my opinion, were always male, regardless of being assigned the wrong sex at birth. This is not the case of the individual we are discussing.

I am not talking about any physical, mental, emotional, or hormonal aberrations. My point is: This person has the physical equipment to bear children, so, it's no surprise that he is pregnant. He may identify as male, and we may accept him as male, but his reproductive organs started out as female and remain female. Therefore, it's no curiosity that he is pregnant. The "duck test" would apply here.

If he had no uterus, ovaries, and fallopian tubes, and was pregnant, then, that would be news. Seems rather simple to me.

[Stu2630]

Home Nudist


you, in my opinion, were always male, regardless of being assigned the wrong sex at birth.

You make it sound like some simple medical error - "Oh shucks! We thought that she was a girl but really he was a boy all along! I guess I need new glasses!"

I have a vestigial ovary and fallopian tube. During puberty, I started getting periods - albeit briefly. Still think I was "always male"? When I was 19, I was assured that it would be physically impossible for me to parent a child biologically, either as a father or a mother. Then they were so astonished to discover that I actually had a half-decent sperm count they mentioned my case in some medical journals! After three decades of being a normal, married father of three, I still get the occasional letter from some 'researcher' or other asking me to undergo tests, examinations and so on. No way I'd do that, though, I had quite enough prodding, poking and inspecting as a kid, thank you! I'm not a cat who has just been spayed. Nobody sees my private parts these days, no matter how medically qualified they may be.:mad:

The grey area between the sexes is far bigger than most people realise as the more radical forms of hermaphrodism prove.

Stu

[nacktman]

As Stu's world turns.

Brought to you by Boring Soap Brand.
Makes your sheets as hard as bricks and removes those pesky reality stains from your thoughts with ease.:laugh:

The story thus far ...

[Bob S.]

Stu, no matter the biology, social aspects, or psychology of sex, only women can get pregnant. That is a fact of life.

When it comes to the televising of breasts on broadcast TV, it does not matter if they are small or large, reduced or enhanced, the breasts of a pregnant person would be perceived as a woman's breasts for the FCC if they apply their standards.

However, in this case homer, there could be no way for the FCC to fine the stations for showing the breasts. They do not meet all necessary regulations for determining a broadcast as indecent.

Bob S.

[Home Nudist]

Home Nudist



You make it sound like some simple medical error - "Oh shucks! We thought that she was a girl but really he was a boy all along! I guess I need new glasses!"

I have a vestigial ovary and fallopian tube. During puberty, I started getting periods - albeit briefly. Still think I was "always male"? When I was 19, I was assured that it would be physically impossible for me to parent a child biologically, either as a father or a mother. Then they were so astonished to discover that I actually had a half-decent sperm count they mentioned my case in some medical journals! After three decades of being a normal, married father of three, I still get the occasional letter from some 'researcher' or other asking me to undergo tests, examinations and so on. No way I'd do that, though, I had quite enough prodding, poking and inspecting as a kid, thank you! I'm not a cat who has just been spayed. Nobody sees my private parts these days, no matter how medically qualified they may be.:mad:

The grey area between the sexes is far bigger than most people realise as the more radical forms of hermaphrodism prove.

Stu

Stu, I'm sorry for what you suffered, but this really ISN'T about YOU. And, I see no reason for you to turn this thread into a "cause" for the inter-sexed and transsexual. I don't criticize their mind sets or their actions. It does not concern me one bit. It's their business. It's your business.

My point is very simple: The media is wrong in calling the individual in question a "pregnant man." It's all hype. She's a woman.

While SHE may identify as male, and may have had herself surgically and chemically altered to make her body match her mind, SHE is still very much a woman and pregnant by choice. I don't see it as earth shattering news that a woman is pregnant.


And Stu, no one wants to see you naked, and you don't have to see anyone else naked, so there should be nothing left to say. Yet, you go on beating a very dead horse.

I detect some hostility in you. With all due respect, I think you have issues to work out (who wouldn't?), or you wouldn't be talking about nudity and sex to the extent that you do. And, you are in complete denial about it. The only one you're fooling is yourself.

I admire your candor, but blabbing all over the Internet about your intimate problems is a little more information that most people need to know.

"The lady (or man) doth protest too much, methinks."

[Stu2630]

Bob and Home Nudist

I was merely trying to point out that most people tend to take a very one-dimensional view of gender, and that leads to misconceptions and prejudices. For you, your gender identity is unequivocal - set in stone but for many people, gender is not as straightforward.

A person's sex is, as I said, a life package with many ingredients. We have a chromosomal sex, a hormonal sex, a genital sex, a mental sex, a psychological sex, a relational sex and a social sex. Freud recognised that nearly everyone has some sexual characteristic which is either atypical or actually conflicts with some element of their biological sex. Some women love hunting - some men cry when watching a romantic film - some women grow facial hair - some men have fat distribution more usually found on females - some men prefer sex with other men while some women have corresponding partner preferences.

I agree it can be said to be inaccurate to describe the character concerned as a "pregnant man", but the individual isn't a woman either. That person, like millions of others around the world, sits somewhere between the two ends of the gender spectrum. I'm sure that he would have found the suggestion that his sex change was no more than "cosmetic" to be both inaccurate and very hurtful (I'm certain that it wasn't anyone's intention to be hurtful). And that did make me a bit angry because I can probably relate to this guy better than anyone else here.

A person can't choose the sex they were born with, but a small number of people, like this guy, are convinced that nature has played a dreadful trick on them. Medical intervention now enables him to live as a man in almost all respects. In most western countries, the law now respects that process and confirms its full recognition of sex reassignment. We should follow suit because to do otherwise gains nothing yet shows prejudice and mean-spiritedness.

Stu

[Fitz1980]

People probably aren't that up in arms over Oprah showing the "pregnant man's" breasts because this person is flat as a board and has facial hair. When Brian Zembick got breast implants for a $100,000 bet "The Man Show" made him put band aids over his nipples when he was on their show.

[Home Nudist]

Stu:

I was merely trying to point out that most people tend to take a very one-dimensional view of gender, and that leads to misconceptions and prejudices. For you, your gender identity is unequivocal - set in stone but for many people, gender is not as straightforward.

I don't appreciate your assuming what know or how I perceive things.


A person's sex is, as I said, a life package with many ingredients. We have a chromosomal sex, a hormonal sex, a genital sex, a mental sex, a psychological sex, a relational sex and a social sex. Freud recognized that nearly everyone has some sexual characteristic which is either atypical or actually conflicts with some element of their biological sex. Some women love hunting - some men cry when watching a romantic film - some women grow facial hair - some men have fat distribution more usually found on females - some men prefer sex with other men while some women have corresponding partner preferences.

And, I don't appreciate your "talking down" to me from some lofty pulpit. Stu, you always sound like you're lecturing the rest of us. I happen to know and understand everything you wrote. What you've experienced doesn't give you licence to lecture and take a superior attitude.


I agree it can be said to be inaccurate to describe the character concerned as a "pregnant man", but the individual isn't a woman either. That person, like millions of others around the world, sits somewhere between the two ends of the gender spectrum. I'm sure that he would have found the suggestion that his sex change was no more than "cosmetic" to be both inaccurate and very hurtful (I'm certain that it wasn't anyone's intention to be hurtful). And that did make me a bit angry because I can probably relate to this guy better than anyone else here.

Sorry, but we'll have to disagree on this. I respect the gender this person wants to identify with, I accept that the law recognizes gender reassignment, and I would not knowingly try to hurt him. I even give you tremendous credit for your candor. But, in my opinion, this individual (his physical body), is a woman cosmetically transformed into a man, even though, in HIS mind he IS a man.


A person can't choose the sex they were born with, but a small number of people, like this guy, are convinced that nature has played a dreadful trick on them. Medical intervention now enables him to live as a man in almost all respects. In most western countries, the law now respects that process and confirms its full recognition of sex reassignment. We should follow suit because to do otherwise gains nothing yet shows prejudice and mean-spiritedness.

"Enables him to live as a man in almost all respects." In all respects except that HE wants to have a baby. Is that what men do?

Let's take this discussion on to another tangent: If he wanted to be a man so badly, why didn't he opt for a hysterectomy? I don't even believe he needed to have a penis created, but why not a complete hysterectomy?

I come from the perspective that all of life is a trade-off, and that no one can have it all. This individual apparently wants to have everything, and God bless him if he can.

His actions don't offend me in the least. It's his logic that completely escapes me. If *I* wanted a sex change, I'd be willing to get rid of my male parts tomorrow. To each his own, but what need would I have of them? Why would I want them to remind me? Wouldn't I want to put that part of myself in the past?

Hey, I'm all for people doing whatever floats their boat. But, to have an opinion that differs from yours is NOT prejudice and mean-spirited. Frankly, I resent that. Who are you do decide? You're doing what you always do, Stu. You're telling other people how they should feel and what they should think. You're self centered, and your opinion is the only one that is right or that matters. I really think you like the attention you get here.

And, I'm a damn fool for feeding into your twisted logic, because there is no reasoning with you. :wall:

Go in Peace.....

[jon71]

No, he is a man. A man that was born female and obviously still possesses organs that are usually thought of as female but he is a man. Nowadays people are not locked into the gender they are born into. He chose to be male and everyone should respect that. Having ovaries DOES NOT make someone female and having a penis DOES NOT make someone male, even if that is the case 99.9% of the time plus.

[MoonShadow]

My point is very simple: The media is wrong in calling the individual in question a "pregnant man." It's all hype. She's a woman.

While SHE may identify as male, and may have had herself surgically and chemically altered to make her body match her mind, SHE is still very much a woman and pregnant by choice. I don't see it as earth shattering news that a woman is pregnant.


And Stu, no one wants to see you naked, and you don't have to see anyone else naked,


You are right, it is nothing but sensationalizing hype.

[Stu2630]

Home Nudist


I don't appreciate your assuming what know or how I perceive things.

When you talk about someone who has undergone the massive life-change of gender reassignment as "cosmetic", that speaks volumes about how you perceive that.


But, in my opinion, this individual (his physical body), is a woman cosmetically transformed into a man, even though, in HIS mind he IS a man.

It boils down to what you regard as a "man" - and, for you, that appears to mean someone who was born with a penis and XY chromosomes. By constraining the definition in that way, you are dismissing all the other elements of being a man as little more than window dressing. Some men are born with XXY configuration - some are actually XX (i.e. Chapelle Syndrome). Some men are born without a penis. Terms like "Man" and "woman" are multi-faceted and carry a massive amount of connotation. Why do chromosomes matter more than, say, brain sex? Indeed, why does a biological characteristic outrank self-identification? To me, the biology is only a part of the package of what makes a man or a woman.

Not all transsexuals go in for surgery - they avoid it for a host of reasons which have nothing to do with wanting to hold on to their originally assigned sex. Sometimes, for example, they avoid it for health reasons, or because they know the procedures carry risks and they are healthy and happy and don't feel a need to take such risks. Why did this guy carry a baby if he wanted to be a man? Because he could - and because his wife was unable to conceive. I have no doubt that your grandchildren will live to see a time when medicine makes it possible for a fully biological man to carry a baby to term.

We live in a world of free speech and I defend your right to your own views and to say what you think. I believe you when you say you don't want to be hurtful. I just ask you how would you feel if your very identity as a member of the sex you consider yourself belonging to was contradicted by a stranger, and the process of change you have painstakingly undergone dismissed as "cosmetic".


Stu

[Home Nudist]

Stu:


When you talk about someone who has undergone the massive life-change of gender reassignment as "cosmetic", that speaks volumes about how you perceive that.

So, because I haven't experienced what you have experienced, I have no right to an opinion? That would put just about every shrink and counselor out of business, unless they each experienced every one of the myriad problems of the human condition.


I just ask you how would you feel if your very identity as a member of the sex you consider yourself belonging to was contradicted by a stranger, and the process of change you have painstakingly undergone dismissed as "cosmetic".

As usual, you take a word, give it a spin of your own, and imply an entirely different meaning.

"Cosmetic" is not meant to be an insult or to trivialize the cause of the intersexed. By, "cosmetic," I mean an external change that changes nothing internally. If I dye my hair, that would be cosmetic. My roots would still be silver. And, I think you know that's what I mean. I don't have to explain it to you.

Now, you'll put a spin on my words (I'll beat you to it!) and say that what "changed internally" for the transsexual is his/her "feelings." That gets into yet another level. But, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck........

I don't know why I bother with this.......................

[jon71]

Homenudist you shouldn't bother with this since you clearly don't understand and are unwilling to learn. Penis does not equal male and Vagina does not equal female. A person can have a body of one gender and a mind/soul of the other. This person may or may not choose surgery to reconcile them. Then there are people whose body is not completely one or the other to start with. In short any educated person in this day and age should understand that this issue is more complex than people would have assumed in years past. There are more than 6 billion humans on this planet, let's assume that allows for a LOT of variety.

[Home Nudist]

jon71: You are missing the entire point of this discussion.......

[Bob S.]

Stu:"I was merely trying to point out that most people tend to take a very one-dimensional view of gender, and that leads to misconceptions and prejudices. For you, your gender identity is unequivocal - set in stone but for many people, gender is not as straightforward."

Neither HomeNudist nor I are taking that one-dimensional view. I understand the very complex issues regarding sexual identity. However, my post was focused not on the individual, but on the law. The law is very one-dimensional.

I would agree that this transgendered individual is more confused than others. Although I did not see the show, I find it interesting that not only did this person choose to keep his complete female sexual organs, but also chose to get pregnant. In that respect, despite how much this person wants to be a man, the fact is that he is still a woman, or at least from the stomach down, both internally and externally.

The fact they used the phrase, "Man gets pregnant" is a misnomer. A woman who is either in transition or only wants to commit halfway to the conversion got pregnant. Legally, this person would still be a woman.

Bob S.

[Stu2630]

HoneNudist


So, because I haven't experienced what you have experienced, I have no right to an opinion?

Of course you are entitled to an opinion - but words are powerful things and invoke responses. A white person is entitled to opinions about being black. If you made a generalisation about black people which a black reader here took to be misinformed, you could reasonably expect some flak.

That would put just about every shrink and counselor out of business, unless they each experienced every one of the myriad problems of the human condition.

That's true - but you'll never see a professional in the field describing sex reassignment as being merely "cosmetic".


"Cosmetic" is not meant to be an insult or to trivialize the cause of the intersexed. By, "cosmetic," I mean an external change that changes nothing internally.

I know it wasn't intended to be insulting - I just think you made a bad choice of words with "cosmetic" and I really hope you wouldn't say that to a transgender person. When a person undergoes reassignment, the most fundamental changes are internal. Hormones and then the later surgical procedures bring about profound changes in the individual aside from what is visible. Even factors such as bone density and cardiac performance alter. Female-to-male transsexuals notice major changes in things such as appetite and libido as well as mental changes. Male-to-female transsexuals find some internal organs alter radically following reassignment - their liver function decreases, their feet shrink, their breast tissue activates, their prostate glands atrophy, and formerly heterosexual males start to become attracted to people who were once members of their own sex. "Cosmetic" implies physical appearance and the process is massively greater than that.

BobS


I find it interesting that not only did this person choose to keep his complete female sexual organs, but also chose to get pregnant. In that respect, despite how much this person wants to be a man, the fact is that he is still a woman, or at least from the stomach down, both internally and externally.

Now that's quite an interesting point and illustrates a phenomenon that I have seen yet is not widely acknowledged. Some transsexuals like to have their cake and eat it - to enjoy the best of both worlds. This is a phenomenon we notice with some intersex people, too where, for example, someone who was originally designated as female and then is reassigned retains a fondness for certain items clothing, cosmetics, perfumes etc that are henceforth denied to them (women's choices in these things are vastly greater than men's and you only realise just how much when you have to give them up). It would be a serious mistake to assume that this means the individual has not fully embraced their membership of their re-assigned sex. Some male-to-female transsexuals love to see the soft skin and curves which the hormones bring on, but they regret losing the physical strength which they took for granted as men. Maybe this is a factor in this case.


The fact they used the phrase, "Man gets pregnant" is a misnomer. A woman who is either in transition or only wants to commit halfway to the conversion got pregnant. Legally, this person would still be a woman.

Yes, it is a confusing expression and is less than entirely accurate: the expression "woman gets pregnant" would hardly be worth printing and wouldn't attract audiences or readers. Here in the UK, the individual could legally be regarded as a man until the point where he got pregnant, and then we would be on unknown legal territory and how the courts would view his status is a matter of conjecture.

Stu

[gadvfreak99]

It should be already their only breasts.

[Bob S.]

Stu, regarding HomeNudist's use of the term "cosmetic surgery," it is a valid term for what the person has gone through. Breast reduction surgery is a form of cosmetic surgery. Since I assume that this person has undergone no other surgeries to remove internal organs, then that would mean the only surgery so far done on this individual is cosmetic surgery. Hormone treatments are not a form of surgery. The transition from one gender to another includes many surgeries, some of them are considered cosmetic, as in altering only the outer portion of the body for a non-emergency reason.

Internal surgery, including removal of the uterus, testes, etc. is not considered cosmetic.

Stu:"Some transsexuals like to have their cake and eat it - to enjoy the best of both worlds."

Those transsexuals would not be complete and would probably be considered in-transition from a psychological view. There is a time between decision time in the psychologist's office and surgery. They usually are taking hormones and the such and can function as the opposite sex and this phase lasts usually for about a year. After that, they can opt for surgery or not. I am not sure how many psychiatrists would continue to prescribe hormones for an in-transition transsexual for years on end.

That leads me to question another aspect of this pregnancy. Is the person still taking male hormones? Any kind of drug can interact badly with the fetus and an excess of testosterone can be bad for the unborn baby. During pregnancy, the mother's hormones are already in whack, adding to that the extra hormones needed for this transsexual could be dangerous for both mother and child.

Bob S.

[Running Bear]

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/2658/piggycc4.th.jpg (http://img174.imageshack.us/my.php?image=piggycc4.jpg)

Cosmetic surgery. I have a more liberal definition of cosmetic surgery. Cosmetic surgery is a procedure carried out not for a medical need. A medical need is a physical or mental disease. So even a hysterectomy could be regarded as a cosmetic procedure according to this definition. This definition is not limited to internal.external processes. Cosmetic surgery can be minimum like removal of a mole to severe like removal of a leg (some people have a leg removed for no medical reason except that they do not like the leg) Stu is applying a less common usage that cosmetic refers to superficial procedures which is incorrect but a common application.
The grey area is the fact that a transgender application could be termed as a cosmetic need or could be termed a medical need that is the dilemma. The definition is not perfect.
PS: It does seem surreal that we worry over the exposure of the female breast compared to the male breast but only partially apply that since children with undeveloped breasts are fine but the line seems to be drawn over the poached-egg breast (I apologise for this term) in adults. I would have felt that the swollen breast is the deciding factor but how swollen? The silly problem is the transgender breast. A flat breast in a female and a swollen breast in a male. Does a male supporting a full breast tissue have a legal need not to expose them? I think the problem of which toilet to use also comes into this debate and the law tends to use 'the external appearance of the gender' as a deciding factor but it is complex. There are some standard males that look very feminine and many ladies wear trousers!
It is now accepted that males pubic shave in naturist circles and if you do not then you are strange. Historically men who shaved were deemed homosexuals or effeminate. This is a strange social development. How can you claim that your pubic hair defines what sex you are?