Man Pregnant with Thought... and Babies

Today's discussion focused on an article that hit the news on Wednesday about a pregnant man.  Thirty year-old Scott Moore is eight months pregnant with a baby boy.

Before you think this a sci-fi plot or the premise of a bad movie, you should know that Moore was born a woman, kept his female organs, and was inseminated by the sperm of a friend (not his husband, since he, too, was born a female).  He and his husband have two adopted children already, and they are thrilled with the news that they are the first gay couple to get pregnant.

Moore, however, is not the first man to get pregnant; so did Thomas Beatie.  Beatie was also born a female, but he legally changed his sex, underwent hormonal therapy, and married a woman.  Because his wife could not get pregnant, they decided that he could carry a baby.  The child was born to a mother and a father in June of last year.

This raises some interesting questions about parenthood, sexuality, and reproductive rights.  In our discussion, we addressed the ethics and politics of men having babies, and we even ventured to understand why so many fertility clinics, doctors, and regular ol' people might take issue with stories like these.  We considered the health and upbringing of the children, as well as the power of tradition and shared cultural bigotries (if such things exist).  We also wondered how feminists might feel about this story - that something so female can be shared with (or taken by) men.  (As a feminist, though, I am not threatened.  The men in these stories were born female.  They were born with uteri, and they are using them.  This is not the same thing as males trying to make women obsolete or denying them reproductive choice/ability/power by getting pregnant themselves.)

While some might be able to shrug off such events since Moore and Beatie still have xx chromosomes, it is undeniable that most of us have some kind of gut, emotional reaction as we read their stories and look at their pictures.  Whether that emotion is discomfort, joy, anger, acceptance, fear, disbelief, or amusement is based on our individual upbringings, educations, experiences, and values.  One thing seems for sure, though, (and I know that that statement invites its own debate) - if that emotion is not positive, then we might need to take a moment and find the roots of our emotions and question them, get to the heart of why we feel the way we do, and perhaps change ourselves as the world changes around us.

"You are so awesome."

"OMG - so are you!"

White Basketballs

When does celebrating racial pride become racist behavior?  When is it okay for a group to exclude others from their club (and by extension, their activities and their gathering places)?  Is it only considered "racist" if the dominant culture is excluding minorities?  These questions were touched upon in today's discussion of a new basketball league that we read about online.  Apparently the league wants to exclude all athletes who are not American-born and have two Caucasian parents.  Most of us scoffed at the absurdity of such a proposal, but the story inspired us to try to articulate why such a proposal is so offensive.  I don't think this conversation is over.  There is much to say about racism today - its definitions, its boundaries and limitations, its hypocrisies (or perhaps double standards), its manifestations, and its concealments.

My Dog Knows Calculus

Have you ever shot a basketball? The arch the ball takes to the basket follows rules of calculus. So, does shooting a basketball based on specific calculations of arch and velocity (even if they may not be accurately applied 100% of the time) suggest that we all have some inherent knowledge of calculus or other higher mathematics?

Toss a Frisbee and watch your dog run after it, all the while calculating the best and most efficient approach it must take to snag the disc in mid-air trajectory (calculus on the run?). So, does this mean that dogs have an inherent knowledge of advanced mathematics?

Well, maybe not. But it was worth a few minutes of fun discussion. We talked about how mathematics (specifically calculus) was a way to explain things that occur in nature, and that it isn't an inherent knowledge or skill. Soap bubbles don't know calculus, but we can use calculus to explain their shape. Just because someone can shoot (and make) a basketball doesn't mean they know calculus, but we can use calculus to explain how the ball was shot.

Illogical Dolphins

Today's discussion focused on an article about dolphins' intelligence and status.  The article begged the question, "Should dolphins be called 'non-human persons' because they can be as intelligent as a four-year old human?"  While the conversation could have turned silly at any minute, it actually hit on a lot of interesting issues, such as what it means to be a "person" and what rights go along with that distinction.  We asked if those rights extend beyond the rights not to be abused and killed (similar to the animal rights we are familiar with).  Do humans have a right to eat?  To vote?  What are these rights, and how does one (person or animal) go about getting their hands (or flippers or tentacles or paws) on them?  Are there unalienable rights, or are they always cultural? 

The latter portion of our noon hour addressed the nature of logic, or more accurately, logical fallacies.  We discussed them as argument strategies and identified some of the more popular fallacies.  I questioned my own "logic" and definition of logic (reasonable, down-to-earth, "good head on my shoulders") and my own unintentional use of fallacies in discussions.  While it is a good idea to be aware of our argumentative strategies, we shouldn't be paralyzed or silenced by the knowledge that such strategies exist.   

Re: Get a Haircut, You Danged 4-Year-Old Hippie!

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2009/12/get_a_haircut_you_danged_4-yea.php

SWAP Consensus:
This child's hair is in violation of the school rules, and these rules probably had an admirable goal of maintaining an acceptable standard of presentation, just as many schools implement dress codes. Indeed, the rules should be challenged, since it seems unlikely that this boy's hair is actually disrupting the education of his peers and since he is required to attend this school (unlike the military or a place of work). Unfortunately, his freethinking parents aren't suited to make the case. If this child had a religious or cultural reason to have long hair, he would have a better chance at overturning the extreme standards set by the school district. As it stands, it may be better for the child to understand that there will be rules that he doesn't understand that he will have to live with for now.