Blackadder’s Lair

The home of many a cunning plan

Why Can’t A Woman Be More Like A Man?

The headline was certainly arresting. “Pregnant Man Tells Oprah: It’s a miracle.” Yet the details of the story paint a slightly different picture:

A transgendered man who is six months pregnant said in an interview aired by Oprah Winfrey on Thursday that he always wanted to have a child and considers it a miracle.

“It’s not a male or female desire to have a child. It’s a human desire,” a thinly bearded Thomas Beatie said. “I have a very stable male identity,” he added, saying that pregnancy neither defines him nor makes him feel feminine.

Beatie, 34, who lives in Oregon, was born a woman but decided to become a man 10 years ago. He began taking testosterone treatments and had breast surgery to remove glands and flatten his chest.

“I opted not to do anything with my reproductive organs because I wanted to have a child one day,” he told the talk show host.

There’s nothing particularly miraculous about the story. Women get pregnant all the time, and despite any claims to the contrary Beatie is still a woman. She clearly does not like to think of herself that way, and has taken various steps to make herself appear that way (though from the story it does not appear that she has undergone sex-reassignment surgery), but neither thinking of oneself as male nor looking male is sufficient to actually be male.

Suppose that Beatie had undergone sex reassignment surgery. In that case the issue of her getting pregnant never would have arisen. But would it then be true to say that Beatie was a man? I think not. One’s sex, or so the biologists tell us, is determined not simply by the presence or absence of any particular sexual organs, but reflects a deeper genetic reality. The fact that a woman has undergone even fairly extreme measures to make her look like a man does not mean that she is a man, anymore than the fact that a person might undergo surgery to make himself look exactly like a particular celebrity means that he has become that celebrity.

This doesn’t mean, of course, that it is necessarily impossible for a woman to become a man or visa versa. One can certainly imagine science-fiction type scenarios (say, transplanting the central nervous system of a man into a woman’s body, or some new medical treatment that reconfigures one’s genetic structure) where this could at least arguably be said to occur. Nor does the fact that, at least with current technology, it is impossible for a woman to actually become a man or visa versa mean that it is immoral for her to take whatever steps are available to look and act that way. When John Howard Griffin underwent medical treatment to make himself look black before he wrote Black Like Me, he did not actually become black. Yet this fact does not mean that it was morally wrong for him to undergo the treatment. It may be that, given the current state of technology, transgendered individuals are tragically unable to actually change their sex, and that the next best case scenario is for them to do what they can to at least appear more like a member of their preferred sex.

Nevertheless, there is something about the justification typically offered by individuals for trying to change their sex that is troubling. In cases like this, the claim is often made by the transgendered and their supporters that the transgendered individual in question is a man trapped in a woman’s body, or visa versa. While such claims represent a no doubt very powerful and pressing subjective reality for the people involved, so far as I can tell the claim is philosophically incoherent. I can imagine a man being trapped in a woman’s body, as in, for example, the movie Inner Space. But what people typically mean by such a claim – that though they have a male body they are somehow really female or visa versa – does not strike me as being even metaphysically possible. One’s gender is determined by one’s body. Being female consists simply in having a female body, being male in having a male body. So it is not even coherent to claim that one has a female body but is not female. Having a female body is what being female means.

Nor would the ability to actually change one’s sex, if it were available, make this position any less incoherent. Supposing that there were a pill that could alter one’s sex down to the genetic code. Assuming that people were able to survive such a process they would, I think, have succeeded in changing their sex. Even if someone did undergo such a process, however, it would not be the case that they were ever a man trapped in a woman’s body or a woman trapped inside a man’s body.

Of course, the fact that a person’s motivation for an action is based on a philosophically incoherent belief does not necessarily make that action morally problematic. But it ought, I think, to give us pause when evaluating such decisions.


April 8, 2008 - Posted by | Identity, Philosophy


  1. Though I’m not sure I’m fully prepared to argue what, it seems to me that there probably is more to “male” and “female” than the biological possession of a body which is originally male and female. But then, I’m reaching that conclusion though the conviction that a human being is a fundamentally incarnational creature — something composed of a body soul which are fundamentally linked. In that sense, it seems to me that there must be an aspect of male-ness or female-ness to the whole person, not just the body.

    Now, the claim of being a “man trapped in a woman’s body” or vise versa seems to take a rather different approach to the human person, and assume that the person is strictly the mind or soul, and that the person possesses a body (rather as I possess a house) but that it cannot be said that the person _is_ the body. I don’t really buy that, but it’s certainly a popular theory of the person throughout history.

    Comment by Darwin | April 8, 2008 | Reply

  2. I don’t think it matters what position one takes on the relationship between body and soul. If one believes that a person is a soul but only possesses a body, then the sex of the person will still depend on what body they possess (just as, say, the person’s eye color is determined by their body and not by their soul). If one believes in the hylomorphic view (that a person is the conjunction of body and soul), then it’s the same story. If I am the conjunction of my eyes and my feet (along with some other stuff), that doesn’t mean that my feet have brown eyes. It might be possible to draw such a tight connection between a person’s soul and their body that their soul could be said in some sense to be gendered, but in that case the soul would pretty much have to be tied to a particular body, such that not only would it be possible for it to be connected to a body of another gender, it wouldn’t be possible for it to be connected to any other body period.

    Comment by Blackadder | April 8, 2008 | Reply

  3. but in that case the soul would pretty much have to be tied to a particular body, such that not only would it be possible for it to be connected to a body of another gender, it wouldn’t be possible for it to be connected to any other body period.

    Despite my fondness for anime (and what amine is complete without someone living in something other than her/her original body?) I would tend to hold this view, I guess.

    Comment by Darwin | April 8, 2008 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: