« | »

Transgendered Pregnant ‘Man’ Demands Divorce

From TMZ:

Pregnant Man: Divorce Judge is WRONG! I’m a Real Man!

April 4, 2013

Exclusive Details! "Pregnant Man" Thomas Beatie is PISSED after a judge refused to grant him a divorce from his estranged wife — and tells TMZ he’s willing to take the fight all the way to the Supreme Court.

Beatie, a transgender male, is appealing a decision handed down Friday … when a judge in AZ denied his divorce from Nancy Beatie — on the grounds the marriage was NEVER legal since Beatie couldn’t prove he was a man during their nuptials … and the state doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage.

Confusing, isn’t it? But we think this means Beatie is trying to get a divorce, but the judge said he was never married because a woman can’t marry a woman in backward Arizaona.

Beatie tells TMZ he’s not giving up the fight, his attorneys are already drafting up the appeal — and he’ll go the Supreme Court if that’s what it takes.

He explains, "This is personal. This ruling is an attack on my person, my identity, and my family. It’s sad and embarrassing that Judge Gerlach is more focused on wanting to delegitimize my children than legitimize my family."

Beatie continues, "The judge is obviously uncomfortable with me. He has a problem with me having a legal male identity and using my internal organs to start a family."

What a way to put it. But apparently, Ms./Mr. Beatie is appalled at the idea of having lived ‘in sin’ and conceived her/his children out of wedlock.

You’ll recall … the judge made it clear from the beginning​, he had issues with the validity of Beatie’s marriage based on the fact that while married he bore the couple’s 3 children … something no man could do.

Oh, don’t be so narrow minded! A gay, er… ‘person’ can do anything she/he puts her/his mind to.

But Beatie is adamant, the issue is MUCH bigger than his divorce … "This is not Beatie versus Beatie. This is the State of AZ versus transgender people, human reproductive rights, and fairness under the law."

FYI — Beatie was born a woman, but began a sex change in 1997. He married Nancy in 2003 in Hawaii. He filed for divorce in April 2012, claiming Nancy was abusive. Allegations she denied.

Behold the ‘new normal.’

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Thursday, April 4th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

7 Responses to “Transgendered Pregnant ‘Man’ Demands Divorce”

  1. bousquem25

    I thought I read some where that “Thomas” also carried the children to term.

  2. canary

    Add the legality that Thomas Beatie has reversed his sexual identity several times.

    She/He bragged to the media that he went off male hormones for months prior to getting pregnant to increase chances of a health baby.

    The mood swings and hormone imbalance from another sex change, then the hormones imbalances that comes along with the pregnancy made him go back on male hormones at a risk if harming her/his unborn baby.

    It was a matter of Thomas Beatie’s risking her/his baby’s health or his hormonal swings possibly leading him to become violent towards others.

    This drama has been playing out in the news for years.

    There is also a brother/sister who got married and in spite of giving birth to a challenged handicapped baby who has to live in an institution, the brother and sister got pregnant again and faces charges in UK, for ignoring the courts.

    So, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt who tell all that anyone should be able to marry anyone is
    insanity, yet alone immoral. Who can forget her kissing her brother when she won an academy award.

    The Bible is clear of unnatural sexual acts leading to illness to include death.

    Muslims in Africa having sex with monkeys led to aids.

    Horses have to take tests and get certificated by a vet they are not carrying the disease. This is very prominent in the Arabian horse breed.

  3. merkelerk

    When real life becomes more absurd than a Monty Python sketch…

    From “The Life of Brian”
    JUDITH: I do feel, Reg, that any Anti-Imperialist group like ours must reflect such a divergence of interests within its power-base.

    REG: Agreed. Francis?

    FRANCIS: Yeah. I think Judith’s point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man–

    STAN: Or woman.

    FRANCIS: Or woman… to rid himself–

    STAN: Or herself.

    FRANCIS: Or herself.

    REG: Agreed.

    FRANCIS: Thank you, brother.

    STAN: Or sister.

    FRANCIS: Or sister. Where was I?

    REG: I think you’d finished.

    FRANCIS: Oh. Right.

    REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man–

    STAN: Or woman.

    REG: Why don’t you shut up about women, Stan. You’re putting us off.

    STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.

    FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?

    STAN: I want to be one.

    REG: What?

    STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me ‘Loretta’.

    REG: What?!

    LORETTA: It’s my right as a man.

    JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?

    LORETTA: I want to have babies.

    REG: You want to have babies?!

    LORETTA: It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.

    REG: But… you can’t have babies.

    LORETTA: Don’t you oppress me.

    REG: I’m not oppressing you, Stan. You haven’t got a womb! Where’s the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!

    LORETTA: crying

    JUDITH: Here! I– I’ve got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can’t actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans’, but that he can have the right to have babies.

    FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.

    REG: What’s the point?

    FRANCIS: What?

    REG: What’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can’t have babies?!

    FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

    REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

  4. Whether Thomas got an appendadicktomy or not, Thomas is genetically female.

    Appendages and secondary sexual characteristics are not what is important, genes are.

    • canary

      k012957 “genes”. That’s the key. I will never be politically correct on this as he/she is what one will no matter what they implant or cut off.

      I saw on a talk show where a father of 5 became a woman and still married to his baffled wife who feels funny and strange over her new husband turned woman.
      She said it felt awkward sleeping in bed with him after his change.

      And then he corrected the host that his 5 children were not his children, and the wife became a bit upset and explained no doubt to protect the children’s ears and not confuse him.

      She needs to kick him out of the bed as he will soon cheat and tell his wife it’s his right as woman to sleep with a man.

  5. wirenut

    I just wanna pet my dog. He knows his place, and I know mine.
    Life is simple when your not stupid.




« Front Page | To Top
« | »