Talk:Thomas Beatie

Special heading strongly needed

Nearly every article online talking about Thomas Beatie has comments people make complaining because they hate the statement that Beatie is a man. I'm extremely sure that similar comments might be made on this talk page. Anyone able to put a special banner at the top of this talk page?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure. General discussion of editors' opinions of Beattie have no place here as this is not a forum. MOS is clear that self-identified gender takes precedence. Banner added. Best wishes Span (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This article needs to be deleted

This WOMAN has done nothing extraordinary and worthy of inclusion for Wikipedia. She is NOT a man, a "trans man" or a man of any sort. She gave birth as a crossdressing, cross-sex hormone-taking WOMAN. Women give birth, not men. There is nothing extraordinary that millions of other women, including women like this one with mental illnesses and delusions, have done each year. Please delete this pile of garbage. This entry serves only as political propaganda, not as anything worthy of inclusion.

Pregnancies

So the big story here that makes this case different is that he had children. Yet there is not a single word on how. We are told that his internal female system was not removed, nothing further. It says that he underwent gender reassignment surgery, ie, he has male genitalia - or at least a penis. That leaves a lot of questions about how the pregnancy was accomplished. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the article? "The procedure he had, sometimes called "top surgery" or "chest reconstruction" involved a double mastectomy, areolar reshaping and grafting, and contouring of the chest to effectuate a male appearance." He had top surgery, not bottom. --90.202.191.244 (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There IS no "story." A woman with mental delusions gave birth. This is why the article should be deleted. There is not noteworthy other than this woman had a write up on tabloids like the Daily Mail with a stupid publicity stunt she was the "first man in the world to give birth," which is impossible.

A lot of issues with references

I don't have the time to put in all the work necessary, but we need some editors to go through the references and consolidate the duplicates. In some cases, the same entry uses different ref names, in other cases the name appears in a later reference and not the first instance. Easy stuff, but a bit time consuming. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 18:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Vague explanation

Hello,

The events seem very vague to me. Can someone explain if Thomas was born a male or female? and how did he get pregnant? etc, from biological point of view. There are lots of things talking about number of children and legacies but it does not seem very clear as to what biologically happened, and was the children from him and his wife or from something else, and did he become pregnant with his own womb, or did he implanted womb with surgery. I am not sure why these questions are not answered in simple way; the artice makes me confused :S 82.222.165.131 (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Please make sure you know exactly what any statement you say means. Taken literally, the statement that Thomas was born female implies that all people are born cisgender and that there are no natural transgender people. Georgia guy (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Going by what the IP stated, this article needs to be tweaked so that our readers are not confused. The vast majority of people do not understand transgender topics, and Wikipedia is meant for the general public. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Use of male pronouns in “Early life” section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

« Beatie was born and raised in Honolulu, Hawaii, the first of two children. His mother was from San Francisco, and of English, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh descent. His father, of Korean and Filipino descent, was born and raised in Hawaii. As a teenager, Beatie was a model and Miss Hawaii Teen USA pageant finalist. He appeared regularly on the nationally televised aerobics workout series and video, Basic Training with Ada Janklowicz, and later became a competitive bodybuilder. »
Alright, doesn't it sound like utter bullshit to use masculine pronuns to talk about a model / athlete who was definitely female at the time, and unanimously perceived as such ? If some dude gets wings grafted on his back, does everybody else have to feel obliged to call him a bird from his very birth ? Are we so blinded by ideology that we must be in denial of reality, and formulate supposedly encyclopedic articles in such a nonsensical way ? Is it considered so shocking nowadays to simply say that this person was born a woman, and, biologically, still is a woman, with female chromosomes in every single cell of his/her/their body ? Even Aldous Huxley didn't anticipate that kind of absurdity perpetrated in the name of Science and Liberty...--Abolibibelot (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that nobody is born a woman. People are born as babies. They become men and women when they grow up. Regardless, Beatie's notability is based on his life as an adult man, so masculine pronouns are used throughout for the sake of consistency. And as the man Beatie is the present-day subject of the article, his mother/his father etc. is technically correct in any case. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Saying that nobody is born a woman (or man) – and therefore that everybody is born, what, neutral ? – is an example of what Jean-Paul Sartre called bad faith. It's a kind of bullshit. The fact that society creates partly arbitrary norms related to masculinity or feminity (which was a major theme in Simone de Beauvoir's Le deuxième sexe, summed up by the famous aphorism “On ne naît pas femme, on le devient” – but even she did not pretend that a woman is not a woman in the sense that a table is not a chair) does not preclude the fact that there are two sexes, with clearly defined biologicalal, physiological and genetic characteristics, and as of yet nobody born female can actually become male or the other way around, whatever "transition" there is is purely cosmetic, so no, that person is not a man, will never be, or the very definition of "man" collapses under the layers of meaninglessness and it's therefore pointless for anyone to want to become one. Again, if a person decides to be a bird, with the current "you can be what you wanna be" ideology, what should prevent society from acknowledging his/her/"its" identity as such, how is that more absurd? And it's funny that you mention consistency, when a female model is retrospectively referred to as a man! (Just like some other "notable" freak is referred to as a woman who just happened to win decathlon contests in the men category... As George Carlin used to say: “When you're born in this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. And when you're born in America, you're given a front row seat.”)--Abolibibelot (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Your analysis is amusing but flawed, since "man" is not equivalent to "male", and pronouns are not biological categories. You have also ignored the fact that intersex people exist. I'm unaware of society recognizing anyone's claim to be a bird instead of a human as it does for transgender individuals. In any event, using people's preferred pronouns is endorsed by the AP, The New York Times, and GLAAD, among other organizations, so I'm guessing that's why we use them in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I also looked for some mention of this issue earlier at the Manual of Style, but didn't see it until someone brought it up in a recent similar discussion about the Wachowskis. Here it is per MOS:GENDERID (my bolding):

• "Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns (for example "man/woman", "waiter/waitress", "chairman/chairwoman") that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. This applies in references to any phase of that person's life, unless the subject has indicated a preference otherwise."

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Previous name

Given that most of the sources here at least reference Beatie's prior name, Tracy LaGondino, and that all Beatie's records in modeling as a teen use said name, is there a reason it's not in the article? In this case it doesn't need to be in the lead, but at the very minimum should be somewhere in the early life section. In addition to the name being well-sourced and relevant, although Thomas is very much a male name there are a few thousand women named Thomas; this could lead to at least some degree of confusion. And although subject preferences generally shouldn't mean much, in this case Beatie certainly doesn't hide it so mentioning it once doesn't do any harm. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I just want to second this - though I've been brought up to speed while reading this discussion as to why you want to consistently use Him - not mentioning that he was born with the name Tracy seems almost willfully confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.176.169.50 (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Given the overwhelming silence, I added it and retargeted Tracy LaGondino straight to the early life section. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)