It was only a few months back that Saletan was extracting his foot from his journalistic mouth due to his ill-considered and inane thoughts on Race and IQ--a liberal rehash of the bogus Bell Curve. And now, he's wading into issues of gender-identity in a similarly clumsy fashion.

Not once is this piece does he make the important distinction between "sex" and "gender." Nor does he spend any space for comment on the on-going struggle for transgendered people to gain recognition of their gender despite being born with sexual organs that mark them as the other sex. Their struggle is made all the more difficult by supposedly fair-minded journalists who continue to fail to acknowledge the hard felt identities of transgendered people and instead characterize them as a "man or thinks he's a woman" or vice versa or a "crossdresser"--I'm recalling the coverage of "Boys Don't Cry" that referred to the main character as a "cross-dresser" despite the fact that the film was devoted to illuminating the diffference between dressing like the opposite sex and having a gender identity of the opposite sex.

I am no expert on this front, and I would not want to represent myself as one. But, I make an effort. I wish Saletan would make a bit more of one, instead of merely ceding authority to conventional, and for some oppressive, sex and gender dichotomies.

Last time I checked sex and gender were interchangeable. For ALL living organisms sex or gender is determined by the sex organs except for asexual entities such as the amoeba, bacteria or viruses that do not rely on sexual reproduction for propagation of the species. Humans rely on sexual reproduction.

Are you suggesting that when the sonogram says determines that the fetus IS female, we should hold off on that until the child grows to be an adult when he can properly express what gender it THINKS itself to be?

Certain standards are necessary, and if we throw that out the window, then confusion will ensue. Gender or Sex are BIOLOGICALLY determined variables. Ever changing social norms shape our perception of such a variable, from period to period, but ultimately shouldn't effect it.

A paralogue is race. Race is SOCIALLY not BIOLOGICALLY determined and the popular eugenics movement emphasizes what happens when we think otherwise.

Whoa, you guys actually believe this? We need some Judith Butler up in this forum.

Sex and gender may both be biologically determined, but they are not the same thing, at least not in the context of this issue. For most people, their sex and their gender correspond, so the terms are commonly used interchangeably.

"Sex" is biological fact... even if it isn't as clear-cut as people think. "Sex" has been defined based on gonads, sex chromosomes, hormone levels, etc, none of which necessarily line up. For example, 'XY' individuals (chromosomal "males") with androgen insensitivity disorder grow up to look like normal women (with "female" genetalia).

Gender is fuzzier... It is to some degree a social construct, like race. The ideas of what makes human males "men" and females "women" changes from time to time, from country to country. Certainly what it means to be a "woman" in modern American is different than in modern Iran, or in colonial America. I would wager that you don't actually know what the genitalia of most of your acquaintances look like (the biological marker you would probably use to designate them "male" or "female"), but you know whether they are men or women by how they identify, act and dress. There is some biological component to gender predisposition (no one raises their kids to be transgender), but how that is interpreted and expressed is as much a product of culture as how skin shade affects how people identify and interact with each other.

" Certainly what it means to be a "woman" in modern American is different than in modern Iran, or in colonial America"

Social perception of women's role has nothing to do with whether someone is female or not. A female construction worker in NY is no different from a female housewife in Iran. Likewise a man who knits and sews is still a man, even though that is not his expected role in more traditional cultures.

Also THE SPECTATOR can only determine gender/sex based on superficial criteria but that doesn't mean we are right. When an individual is born, the person who ticks the box on the form for gender/sex arrives at this conclusion by examining (ahem) genitalia -- a convention that has stood for 1000s of years.

I do believe that we are complicating a very very simple issue.

People can opt to change their sex and thus gender (that's their choice)-- but it shouldn't be justified by this bogus "sex is different from gender" argument".

*sigh*

I guess I should cut the naysayers some slack, because I used to feel the exact same way until a very close family member finally underwent a sex change, and suddenly so many things became crystal clear about her (formerly his) life and just the way she had been her whole life and how impractical and even cruel it was to ask her to live with the expectations she had been born to.

I came to realize that the difference between sex and gender IS simple to understand. Changing the body in no way is a change of one's perception of self. The fact that I, or You, choose NOT to change our bodies using the (to use Saletan's crude and needlessly sensational euphemism), a la carte sex change options now medically available has everything to do with the fact that we don't use them because we FEEL like women, and have no need to be perceived or to live AS men. (forgive me for presuming your gender and your feeling s about yourself, for a minute).

What Saletan might have specified to put his "freakshow expose" in context is that these medical interventions are now possible for all of us, and that this availability just might entice any of us to invent novel ways of expressing gender, and presumably sex and sexuality as well. Which definitely is something worth pondering, if we can all manage to get past our kneejerk "Eeeewwww!! Grosssssss!!" reflexes.

So, lighten up, Vashti, and nearly everyone else replying to this article. Yes, those who are choosing to change sex do so based on their own gender self perception. And Yes, You choosing NOT to change your own sex is every bit a consequence of your own gender self perception too.

But what drives people to change their sex? It's a disconnect between that sex and their own sense of identity, their gender. Why else would people go to such extreme measures? It takes years of therapy and surgery, not to mention thousands of dollars, to complete the sex change process. Are you saying people do this on a whim?

So, lighten up, Vashti, and nearly everyone else replying to this article. Yes, those who are choosing to change sex do so based on their own gender self perception. And Yes, You choosing NOT to change your own sex is every bit a consequence of your own gender self perception too.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there - what is Thomas Beatie's gender self-perception?

While I might be wasting my breath, let me start by saying that I have no problem with people who have undergone sex-change operations. If someone wants to change his or her outer appearance to better reflect his or her inner-self or self-perception, that is fine by me.

My confusion stems from the fact that Thomas Beatie proclaims to be a man while freely admitting that he kept his female reproductive organs because he wanted to bear a child someday.

The issue then becomes, does Thomas Beatie really perceive himself as a man? What instinct caused him to hold onto his female reproductive organs, those parts that, to most people, make a woman a woman? I don't know how many times I've heard women say "I've never felt more like a woman" during pregnancy. How did pregnancy make Thomas Beatie feel? He says he sees himself as a surrogate; surely he is not unaware that a surrogate must have female reproductive parts, and therefore be, at least technically and biologically, a woman.

Biologically, most human females can carry and give birth to a child. Human males cannot. In choosing to carry and give birth to a child, Thomas Beatie seems to be negating his own self-perception while expecting everyone else to continue to go along with it.

That being said, I do wish Beatie, his wife and their child (especially the child) all the best. I will still probably be called a judgmental and narrow-minded bigot.

rmc913:

I think you've hit the nail on the head there - what is Thomas Beatie's gender self-perception?

...

Biologically, most human females can carry and give birth to a child. Human males cannot. In choosing to carry and give birth to a child, Thomas Beatie seems to be negating his own self-perception while expecting everyone else to continue to go along with it.

That being said, I do wish Beatie, his wife and their child (especially the child) all the best. I will still probably be called a judgmental and narrow-minded bigot.

Two thumbs up for this post. That IMO is the heart of the matter, if "he" REALLY considered himself a man, he wouldn't be having a baby, because men don't do that, do they? No, it fits better to say he's a narcissistic indivual who wants the world to obey his whims.

RMC - I won't call you a bigot, and I think you raise an interesting question. We're trying to slot Thomas into one gender or the other and it sounds like he is choosing both. It occurs to me that this fellow has actually opened up a new identity - one that is BOTH male and female. Maybe we shouldn't try to fit him into either role.

@ RMC

I made the point in another thread here, but I'll drop it here, too...

The reproductive urge is a big biological trump card. "Normal" married straight people spend billions of dollars every year on fertility treatments (including things like hormone treatments, cough, cough). Given that, I don't see why someone keeping the working equipment he has (when he knows that science cannot yet facilitate him siring a child in a more standard way) is such a huge stretch.

I don't think the quandary makes you bigoted. I admit that I have a very hard time imagining what is going on in his head, and have several friends who are transgendered say the same thing. However, the only window we have into his mind is through him; if you do not think he's insane or lying, the only respectful option is to take him at his word.

I don't think there's anything abnormal about Thomas Beatie's reproductive urge. But his choosing to keep his female reproductive organs and to carry a child is a glaring inconsistency in his very publicly stated self-perception. He doesn't seem to be bothered by, or even aware of this inconsistency, and I find that troubling.

But you're right; I don't know what's going on in his mind beyond what he has stated. I can only hope, for the sake of the child, that he really is as "stable and confident" as he says.

The issue then becomes, does Thomas Beatie really perceive himself as a man? What instinct caused him to hold onto his female reproductive organs, those parts that, to most people, make a woman a woman? I don't know how many times I've heard women say "I've never felt more like a woman" during pregnancy. How did pregnancy make Thomas Beatie feel?

When I had my son I never felt like more of a mammal. I'd never felt more like a living house and host. I never felt more like a lot of things, but I can't say it made me feel Yes, this is what it means to be a woman." For many women, that is their experience of pregnancy. But again, that goes back to self-perception.

Beatie has made it pretty clear that he perceives himself as a man. The main reason underlying the argument that Beatie can't be a man is because men do NOT and cannot get pregnant. And therefore that must mean that a real man would never ever want to either, even if he theoretically could.

But is that the case? It's easy to say you could never want something that you think is impossible anyway. But if all the sudden it became possible, you might change your mind. If you woke up tomorrow with a fully functioning vagina and uterus would that make you a woman? Or would you still be a man? If you decided you were still a man, even with your sudden female plumbing, and you wanted a child, and you COULD carry that child to term yourself... would you? Can you be absolutely sure?

I'm not just playing silly hypotheticals here. I'm trying to point out the very real difference between self-expression(gender) and basic reproductive capacity (sex). Traditionally they've worked interchangeably, but advances in sex change surgery are starting to challenge all that. And that doesn't have to be the end of the world.

Beatie has made it pretty clear that he perceives himself as a man. The main reason underlying the argument that Beatie can't be a man is because men do NOT and cannot get pregnant. And therefore that must mean that a real man would never ever want to either, even if he theoretically could.

But is that the case? It's easy to say you could never want something that you think is impossible anyway. But if all the sudden it became possible, you might change your mind. If you woke up tomorrow with a fully functioning vagina and uterus would that make you a woman? Or would you still be a man? If you decided you were still a man, even with your sudden female plumbing, and you wanted a child, and you COULD carry that child to term yourself... would you? Can you be absolutely sure?

I haven't said anything about whether a real man would ever want to get pregnant if it were possible. I'm sure that, if it suddenly became possible, there would be a number of men who would want to experience pregnancy. I think it would be fascinating.

It's not hard for me to imagine waking up with a fully functioning vagina and uterus, considering I've been doing it every day since I was born. But then again, so has Thomas Beatie. Having a child was never not an option for him; when he decided not to have his reproductive organs removed, he retained an essential part of what made (makes?) him a woman. Based on current medical science, his ability to have a child is inconsistent with the biological capabilities of the human male, no matter his self-perception.

It's not hard for me to imagine waking up with a fully functioning vagina and uterus, considering I've been doing it every day since I was born. But then again, so has Thomas Beatie.

I apologize, i got mixed up amidst the replies. But let's say you and I and Beatie all have the female plumbing in common here.

But really, is that what makes you a woman essentially? Your pipes? Because somehow I don't feel like mine have all that much power over the way I see myself... to me they feel incidental to being female human, not the arbiter of my very womanhood. Even when I had a kid, I didn't have that "Woman Nirvana" moment that apparently lots of women who give birth do.

However it's quite easy for me to imainge that if I suddenly had male plumbing that it would be quite a difficult life adjustment and I'd have a real problem NOT relating to myself as a woman anyway. Could it be that this very simple idea is crux of the transgender experience?

I'm perfectly happy NOT taking measures to adjust my sex at the moment. And that is the difference between me and Beatie, and you and Beatie for that matter. As for his retaining bits and pieces of his female pipes to use for carrying a kid... it's not as if abstaining from getting pregnant would have made his uterus any less functional. Why NOT use what little transgender advantage you have and be your own surrogate? I have a really hard time calling him a woman just because he can reproduce the same way I can. That seems a bit obtuse, to say the least.