The beginning of an end to maternal essentialism? I sincerely hope so...

Thomas Beatie is a pregnant trans-gender man from Oregon. There's been a fair bit of media coverage: most of it skeptical, some of it downright prejudiced and inflammatory.



The Guardian remarks on how the "common reaction is to wonder how someone can identify themselves as male and yet embrace pregnancy" and suggests that this is in fact "like saying you can't be a woman and have a career". There has indeed always been this widespread social assumption that equality has only to do with women attaining the same opportunities and privileges as men, and never about men attaining the same opportunities as women. When it happens, society balks!

As the F-Word puts it so well:

"Of course, the reason that the story has gotten so much attention is because Beatie doubly upsets the expectations of a society that is still quite rigid about gender conformity. If transitioning from male to female, or female to male, is still hard for some to accept, then folks who fall somewhere in between, or, as seems to be the case here, are not threatened by forays across the gender divide, totally confound. The concept that Beatie doesn’t feel like being pregnant threatens his identity as a man seems to be difficult to understand for those who are still not entirely comfortable even with those who break down gender roles, such as a female boss, a stay at home dad, etc, let alone challenge the concept of gender as a simple binary divided by an impenetrable wall".



In any socially collective way, we rarely get beyond the quite scandalously over-simplified gender binary that exists between us. Due to its apparently intrinsic and unshakable hold on society, most ground covered on issues of equality works with this divide rather than making any attempt to subvert or transgress it.

Pregnant men do subvert and transgress it, and it's a rare and beautiful thing.

When pressed for reasons why such an occurrence is so offensive, even professionals were struggling for articulate, sensible reasons. Most medical concerns centre around the testosterone treatment taken by Beatie to become male. According to Lisa Masterson, a Los Angeles obstetrician, excessive testosterone "can cause male-type characteristics in the female baby." But this can happen anyway, quite naturally, in more 'regular' births.

And most social concerns centre around the bullying the child might face at school having been born to its father. Bullying is always a favourite tool utilised by conservatives against any moves towards more unconventional parenting: it's been used against everything from single parenting, to adoptive parenting, to gay/lesbian parenting, and even to home schooling and special needs. It is not an argument - it is a non-argument - because the sad fact of the matter is, children get bullied for everything and anything and nothing - from being overweight to wearing the wrong kind of footwear. There's no logic in bullying, and it cannot be preempted. It's just a convenient, authoritative-sounding tool that is always effective in turning public opinion in support of conservative values. Kerrick Lucker, a gay activist at the University of California, gets much closer to the point when he says that "the only unusual challenges these kids face come from members of the public who see gender ambiguity as a great wrong". The bullying, this suggests, is traceable to a very adult public.



Anything that ever suggests a transgression of the old, tired gender binaries inevitably sees a creaky wheeling-out of those hideously reductive and inherently prejudiced arguments about what is considered 'Natural'.



For some reason, regardless of their moral behaviour or lifestyles, any normatively male and female couple have more right to have a baby than a gay/lesbian/trans gender couple who have had to fight everything from social and legal convention to intrusive state surveillance, and often hefty financial pay-outs, to conceive a child or adopt one. Yet reason must surely suggest, as Lucker goes on to point out, that "generally speaking, a man whose desire for a child is strong enough to overcome the obstacles that transgender men must face in bearing one is likely to be an extremely caring father".

As Beatie so eloquently puts it himself: "Wanting to have a biological child is neither a male nor female desire, but a human desire". How long is it going to take us to realise that we are human before we are gendered?

Technorati Tags:
thomas beatie, trans gender, gender, gender roles, gender normativity, pregnant men, being male and female is not an automatic right to parenthood, nature is a social convention not an unquestionable fact, biology is fluid, anatomy is changeable

It's time to leave and find a place for us: Designed for 'Natural' Living

I knew it had to be Emilie Simon, even though I’d never heard that specific piece of music before. It wasn’t only the distinctive music, it was also the theme and the atmosphere of the advert that struck a chord I instantly recognised: and it wasn’t necessarily the music I recognised, it was the ‘feel’ of the world created in the advert.



The world – staged on this occasion in a Novotel hotel room – is one where lived (and lived-in) environments are shared by animals – where divides between exterior outside worlds and indoor interior worlds aren’t clearly defined – where the human body is not obvious in a context where, traditionally, he always would have been. He is not centre stage in a world of his making. The sharp, slick technology of the interiors (and the graphics used to create them) is communicating with wildlife, not with Man, and vice versa. In this world there is no anomaly in seeing deer and seals exist quite ‘naturally’, it would seem, in an interior where they should look out of context, or at least restricted and in captivity. Neither appears to be the case.



And there is a place in human imagination for this picture to be in some way believable, or at least acceptable and accessible as an image, or else the overall effect would be jarring, not serene – we would be repelled by it, and not drawn towards it.



But I could be being too uncritical. There could be an aspect in these images of appropriating wildlife to create an atmosphere or a sensation that requires human control, not only over the production of the graphics, but also over what we need ‘nature’ to do. We need it for our own comfort, reassurance, for peace of mind and, in this case, to imbue a sense of luxury. Neither nature nor technology is as slick and tidy and convenient as this… And in the case of any advert, there is a product to sell, and as impressive as some commercials can be, where capital is the agenda then what we think we see or understand from the aesthetic impact is rarely the underlying meaning, or the core intention of the producer.



Having said that, I’m not in the least surprised to hear Emilie Simon’s voice providing the soundtrack for this integrated circuitry of a world. Many of her music videos engage with the interactivity of the human body with its lived environment and living world – using the body as an interface to make contact and connection with all the natural, human, and technological factors that constitute her musical world. I wouldn’t be surprised if tigers and bears slept in her hotel bedrooms…



Technorati Tags:
novotel, emilie simon, technological environments, fleur de saison, natural technology, wildlife, interfacial, interspatial, capital worlds, commercials