Talk:Male pregnancy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled talk

Can we see a citation that this is considered "theoretically possible" by anybody serious in the scientific community? I suspect there'd be a lot more than just putting a baby inside a man -- horomones, body build, etc. --Fastfission 19:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quite so. I first ran into the issue in the Science Museum in 2003 and can't quite give that reference, but This says it was considered theoretically possible in 1986, and according to this Robert Winston says it's doable. I am still expanding the article. Fiction, mythology, specifics on humans, film, what have you. -- Kizor 20:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pretty big NPOV alert in this article ._.

Oookay... where? --Kizor 23:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

In HUMANS?

"However, examples of male pregnancy can be found in the animal kingdom, in humans, mythology, and popular culture."

Doesn't this contradict the text of the Humans section? Ckamaeleon 04:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to say it does. Removed. --Kizor 06:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was forced to leave before I could finish the edit. Sorry about that, thanks for doing it. --Kizor 11:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

np. was wondering what happened, since there was no hist. record of it being rm'd OR put back. Ckamaeleon 11:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

OriginalResearch Template

There is no respected source which suggests that male pregnancy is either possible, or likely. Comments to that effect in this article are nonsense and uncited. It seems likely that this is a hoax, vandalism, or at least original research with no backup what so ever. 74.136.222.198 21:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see your talk page for an in-depth look into the parts you dispute. The article's sources include a Sunday Times report on the views of Robert Winston - a prominent biologist and fertility specialist, according to his article. The sources are given as external links. If you think they should be indicated better, I'm all ears, but what exactly would be a 'respected' source? Certainly Snopes.com, which this article also uses as a source, is good enough for many Wikipedia articles. --Kizor 21:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to revert text that was removed for lack of citations, you need to add some citations. Otherwise, it'll only get reverted again. Al 21:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected the tags and added {{citeneeded}} where I feel a WP:RS is lacking. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the cite requests. I hope 74's apparent fanaticism can be sorted out. That said, five {{citeneeded}}s have been removed - three by me, two by another. One point where a citation was requested was blatantly obvious, another true by definition, three were uncontroversial facts given in the articles this one links to. --Kizor 18:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Debate

From Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Male pregnancy:

I assure you, I am not the poster to whom you originally refer. A simple check with ARIN and similar sources reveals the original chap to be an American, and me to be British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.45.11 (talk • contribs)

81, You're also responding to me and acting politely, so you can't be him. Sorry. Sorry. And damn; jumping the gun when my credibility is a vital issue! Here's my side of things. What I said earlier stands, except for the striked-through part - 74.136.222.198 has repeatedly edited the page to force his will through. He's answering no attempts at dialogue and accepting no version but his; communications from him have been limited to "Read this and become familiar with it WP:OR" and "ricidulous". He's snide and insulting in his few talk page messages and edit summaries. He's not elaborating on his problems beyond saying that what he doesn't agree with is nonsense, and has made no acknowledgement of the sources I've provided. There is no original research in the article, at least not by me or in the parts he's attacking and I'm defending. I gave an elaborate summary on his talk page. The sources used, Robert Winston and Snopes.com, are in the article as some of its external links. They are by no means the only sources with data of male pregnancy, but cover everything used in the article. If the page that hosts a copy of the Sunday Times article about Winston seems suspect, it's also hosted elsewhere. If the sources should be pointed out better, I'm all ears, but I'm not - repeat not - using OR. --Kizor 18:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The snopes link you provided appears to debunk your entire article's human component.

Not really. It examines the present state and says that it's doable, not yet practically feasible - and the Wikipedia article agrees by describing it as doubly foolhardy. Snopes.com's description of how a male pregnancy would be done corresponds to Winston's statements on the issue. The Snopes link finishes by saying that it could become reality in the future. The article and the source seem to fit nicely to me. --Kizor 11:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Since Male pregnancy is not even feasible at current (as stated by snopes), the article's human component is merely speculative, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.45.11 (talk • contribs)

Please take this discussion back to the talk page of the article. This is not the place for content discussion between editors. Sam Vimes 11:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, we have a need for other editors to go and look at the article in question and weigh in as currently Kizor has been tailoring it to his views, it seems there is a need for other opinions on these views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.45.11 (talk • contribs)

The place to go then is Wikipedia:Requests for comment (more specifically: [[2]]), since this discussion does not require administrator action, merely input which any editor can provide. Sam Vimes 13:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have copied the ongoing part of the discussion to Talk:Male pregnancy, which should be much better suited for talking this out. --Kizor 14:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just come here from the RfC page. My opinions is that the content is larely acceptable as it makes clear that it is speculative, and makes it clear that all cases (apart from male seahorses) are so far consigned to the realms of fiction. If anonymous feels particlularily strong they may consider listing the article for deletion. Jefffire 15:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Now then. 81, I've taken pains to ensure the objectivity and accuracy of this article. You may fault my methods - and I assure you that I'll listen if you do - but please don't accuse me of tailoring it to my views. You said that the human component is merely speculative, and thus inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I'd agree if it was baseless, or my own speculation - but it's neither. We have articles on hypothetical space propulsion mechanisms, for instance, and the contents aren't shots in the dark, they're what experts know about how they would work based on the known mechanics of spaceflight. Similarily, this is what experts know about how male pregnancy would work based on the known mechanics of the human body. --Kizor 15:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Responding from RfC;my suggestion would be to substantially expand on the physiology of the seahorse, as here the phenomenon is both well studied and fascinating; I think with a solid V RS core then the speculative section on nale pregnancy in humans would be nore acceptable,at least to the extent that it has been widely discussed; Gleng 19:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Please see the comments regarding the RfC - expansion is needed in the Other species section. Viridae^Talk 03:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Like Gleng above I would expand the seahorse section considerably, as the only natural male pregnancy, it surely has more of a bearing on the article than the slight possobility of human male pregnancy. The human section seems to be ok, but I would do a couple of searches and see if there was any large uproar or disagreement from the rest of the scientific community about Lord Winston's claims. It would be very unencyclopedic to base an article on a rogue scientist who doesn't have the support of the scientific community. I would also rearrange the article, actual male pregnancy in the seahorse is more important to the topic than theoretical male pregnancy in humans. If anyone responds to this/wants clarification of any of these points, can you please leave a message on my talk page. Viridae 23:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I've done some Google searches and it seems that Winston's Sunday Times article is the best-known source, and there's a number of tertiary sources about it. I've found no large uproar or anything to that effect. article interviews other experts, who note the current risks and estimate that it's about 20 years away. It mentions that 'others' doubt it, but doesn't go into detail. The article mentions artificial wombs which are already linked to here, but it could be added with a more detailed source. I agree with the seahorses, and there's stuff about them too [3] [4], but I think I'll have to leave them to someone who actually has some knowledge of marine biology. --Kizor 21:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter??

The article says that an instance of male pregnancy occurs in Harry Potter. Where? I don't recall ever reading such a thing. Nightscream 01:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be in fan fiction - not in the books themselves. --Grace 02:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Generally considered possible"?

Due to advances in modern medicine the concept is generally considered possible, but both the risks and the chances of success are still at foolhardy levels. The ethical concerns that would be presented by any attempt are significant.

I deleted the above paragraph. It's a pretty suspicious claim that shouldn't be included without a very reputable citation, and I'm highly skeptical of whether the supposed "advances in modern medicine" have yet occurred. --Grace 02:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Expansion suggestion

I suggest that Persistent müllerian duct syndrome, and other related conditions, be considered and evaluated for inclusion in the human section of the male pregnancy. I am not sure if such conditions increase the possiblility of such a pregnancy, but it should still be looked into.--Cutesmartguy 18:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Lee MingWei

Can somebody update this article with some info on Lee MingWei (the fictitous guy featured on www.malepregnancy.com)? Wahming 06:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note that the paragraph involving the possible delivery of a male pregnancy is a direct plagiarism of the same section of the "science of male pregnancy" page of www.malepregnancy.com. Either that or the other way around. It should probably be paraphrased I think. --Mooglemoogle 22:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Totally disputed

This article is pretty ridiculous. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

No, this is not. The article has - or at least had - a valid, properly referenced basis. The concept is esoteric but it's observed in the animal kingdom, found in mythology and there are a few genuine articles about the possibility of it in humans, including (as I say above) those of Robert Winston, a prominent biologist and fertility specialist. What you probably have a beef with is the fact that this basis has been supplemented and/or replaced by speculation. Ecch. But the concept is valid, so I'm removing the totallydisputed tag though I'm not opposed to adding a more appropriate one. This thing needs work. Unfortunately, I'll be tied up with an exam and an essay for a day, possibly two. --Kizor 21:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You might also consider it original research to note that a male pregnancy would have to be ectopic, and the delivery done by caesarian section, but since an ectopic pregnancy is one outside a womb and the alternative to a c-section is vaginal delivery... don't. --Kizor 21:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand the relevance to mythology and so forth. However, the speculation section on how it might physically be enacted, in the future, if such and such technology ever came to be... that's crystal-ball crap. Joie de Vivre 21:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Possible science" section removed

This section was POV, in that it does not make it clear that this is pure speculation. It was written in a way that makes it sound as though the concept has a viable, medical basis. If it is to be included, specific references are necessary and it must be made explicit that this has no historic precedent whatsoever. We can't just say "oral contraceptives would be administered" or what have you. We have to say "Robert Winston speculates that oral contraceptives would be administered" and so forth. Joie de Vivre 22:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Because ...it has a viable medical basis.Sure it's not very healthy,but this is not the point."explicit that this has no historic precedent",you can add that your self."Robert Winston speculates that ..." good add it.--87.65.176.153 12:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this published in any medical journal? Is this speculation supported by any peer review? Or is this just the musings of one person? It is undue weight to go on in detail about this one person's speculation, a minor mention may be appropriate. Joie de Vivre ^T 15:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Our article says that Winston is a reputed biologist and fertility specialist, and proper peer review might be hard until the subject is taken seriously. But worry not - when the baseless speculation (don't know where that came from) in the article is cut away, Wilson's statements are not inordinately long. --Kizor 07:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A part some reordering(the article isn't just for human's) and the paragraph on ectopic pregnancy,the rest is like you edit them.--87.65.176.153 11:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Complitly removing all explanation on ectopic pregnancy, and replacing it with just " , a doctor who specializes in fertility, speculates that surgical intervention may make it possible for a man to sustain a pregnancy, though this has never been attempted.",is rather too weak and vague.--87.65.176.153 12:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent) It is misleading and POV to have a section of Male pregnancy titled "In humans". There is no male pregnancy in humans. Please stop reverting and let's discuss the degree to which the Winston speculation should be included. Joie de Vivre ^T 12:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, reverting to something less "weak and vague" is not a very good way to get along with other editors. The paragraphs you are instating are not attributed to anyone. Here is the paragraph you are instating among other edits:

The use of a womb is not absolutely necessary ,threw the induction of an abdominal ectopic pregnancy. Fertilization would be done in vitro by implantation into the abdominal cavity ,and starting the process would require the father to take female hormones—blurring the line between the sexes. Delivery would be done by caesarean section.While a fetus of ectopic pregnancy is typically not viable(that naturally occur in women), very rarely, an abdominal pregnancy has been salvaged. The delivery will require Cesarean section to remove the baby and the placenta. Removal of the placenta would be the real danger because it forms such intimate connections with surrounding blood vessels that a massive hemorrhage would be likely. Implantation may also involve other structures in the abdomen, including the bowel and it is possible that parts of other organs might have to be removed. Several physicians who are well-accustomed to advanced and dangerous forms of ectopic pregnancies would have to be on-hand to handle any complication. The real problem with a male pregnancy of this type is not its plausibility, but if the man could survive it. In women, ectopic pregnancies are generally removed as soon as possible. The fetus would also be in danger of complications because it would be deprived of the protection of a uterus.

Is it empirically true that "the use of a womb is not necessary"? This is pure WP:OR in the way it is presented. Everything must be directly attributed to Winston and its bulk should be cut down by about two thirds; Wikipedia is not a platform for musing on what might be possible. Joie de Vivre ^T 12:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

???? OR?? And tell me what is the mysterious surgery that Robert Winston is speculating about?The article is supposed to be general,for animal's too,i don't see the NPOV problem,you don't mind that your are putting the image in the lead?--87.65.176.153 12:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I put the image at the top because it is humorous and gives the article a little life.

The description of surgery (indented above) which you have reinstated several times is original research, with no references; only this: "<!--supported by Dr Robert Winston, Glenn McGee, Mats Brannstrom,same reference's then the paragraph above!-->". The paragraph is rife with spelling and grammatical errors. Anything so fringe as this must be vigorously sourced. Joie de Vivre ^T 12:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Extrapolating from what Winston may or may not have said, to advance (at excessive length) the position that male pregnancy may be viable is not really how it should work: you need more references to reliable sources, and to avoid original synthesis. Moreschi ^Talk 14:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

American Dad reference

Could someone put in a good summary from an episode of American Dad, where Stan gets temporarily pregnant with Roger's baby after he gave the alien CPR? I'm not good with writing like that...75.134.83.71 00:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record - or for my own use, when my clear my backlog and get back to improving this article, but that'll likely take months given said backlog - This extensive and slightly disturbing article quotes a fertility specialist or two, and should be great for our uses (as long as we stick strictly to what's quoted, or use it as a basis for searching for material) --Kizor 17:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Winston's speculation section

A user keeps coming in and reinstating a large section detailing what a doctor named Robert Winston thinks might be possible as far as a human male pregnancy. The paragraph is written in this style: "first, the fetus would be placed within the abdomen, then, the placenta would be attached to an organ such as the bowel". This style cannot be used. All statements having to do with what one "would" do must be directly attributed to the person who suggested them; in this case, Winston. Furthermore, this added section is too long. See WP:OR. Wikipedia is not a place for pseudoscientific speculation. The long paragraph about his untested ideas is not appropriate. A short mention is appropriate, otherwise we swerve into WP:OR and especially WP:UW. 209.204.144.185 15:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You should read more carefully.The rewritten section is about animals in general.For the scientific part,this is nothing more then a fancy "controled" foetus in foetus or an ectopic pregnancy.Are you joie de vivre?--88.82.46.208 22:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The following paragraph was removed; because it is not sourced appropriately. It is pure speculation, otherwise known as original research.

88.82.46.208, please review WP:OR, WP:V and WP:CS if you wish to include this in some form. 76.231.46.164 18:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

source? [5] This part just talks about the complications of an ectopic pregnancy.The section sais,dr wilson proposed to induce an ectopic pregnancy,then ,yes but ectopic pregnancies are evil.--88.82.46.208 20:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You started with a total revert of everything I did. It destroyed the hard work I put into formatting the references properly. It seems you just want it your way and do not want to discuss anything. 75.61.81.168 21:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny,i thout of the same thing about your revert--88.82.46.208 18:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

The unsourced paragraph quoted above is not appropriate for inclusion in the article. I agree it is speculation. To the extent that it can include citations for its claims, those claims are worth including. However, the source given above doesn't support the paragraph as written. It would be fine if the paragraph said something like "in the opinion of Professor Lord Winston, it is technically feasible for men to bear children" and go on to explain that reasoning to the extent that the sources support it, but avoid any speculation or synthesis of sources to form a conclusion.

As to the reverts, I'm not sure I agree fully with either side. I think the uterine transplants section is worth keeping, for example. I also think that the article has little meat outside the popular culture section, and needs to be expanded to include the prevalent scientific views - without speculation. However, devoting a lot of space to one professor's minority opinion violates Wikipedia:Undue weight so try to avoid that. -Amatulic 23:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your critisism is exacly one of the problem of the section.It gives the false impression that mister wilson thaut of that on his won in his little corner out of thin air, this was added,in my opinion by pure bigotry.In fact is a speculation shared by a lot of peopol,scientist or not,is like fusion reactors, great idea,not very brain storming ... and no one implemented it yet.The speculation portion it just sais(now i change it a little), that we could induce an ectopic pregnancy,this is nothing revolutianary and then it besacaly sais that ectopic pregnancies are evil in women,so they are evil in men too.Ther's one source in the title of the section,if anybody bothered to reed it that just exposes what wilson and some other experts are saying.More specificaly the "critisim" portion comes from a bunch of peopol(it would be ugly to site them all), and the "lets induce an ectopic" is sourced on the professor(because of verifiability resons,not that he is alone against the mainstream), so it shouldn't be a problem with that,since is the "critism" portion that is dysliked.Personally if i was trying to realy make a male pregnancy i wouldn't try the ectopic way,at the very least the section is important in showing that it's a very bad idea to try it that way.Maybe you think that it's whild speculation, with no experimental results and that it aplies only on male pregnancy when in fact 99% is just a repeat of whats happens in a classic ectopic pregnancy in women that realy exist in that way(implantation,bleading,mortality).--88.82.46.208 02:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you please copy your responses into a word processor with a spell checker before posting them? I counted no fewer than 30 errors, which makes it very difficult to understand you.

That said, my most recent edit was to partially revert to my previous version, because I worked very hard at formatting the references properly. If you make future edits I ask that you will NOT start by reverting, because I did work hard at formatting them properly and it is very frustrating when you just throw away useful work in that manner. I made every effort to preserve your additions.

Please provide citations for the material you added, where the "citation needed" marker is placed. 76.221.201.104 14:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

English isn't the native language of many editors on Wikipedia. 88.82.46.208 appears to be from Belgium. I agree that non-careful English usage makes conversation difficult to understand, and easy to misinterpret. Just to be certain, I will caution this editor to avoid introducing subjective words like "bigotry" and "evil" into the conversation. Neither the article nor its talk page are forums for airing personal views. Keep things neutral and well-sourced. =Axlq 17:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"evil" was used to characterize ectopic pregnancies.--88.82.46.208 18:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

some of the rv

• In nearly all heterogamous species,....

Actually by definition ALL males produce sperm.What SOME males do is hosting the embryo.So this change has no sence.

• Speculation regarding male humans

For what reason humans have a monopoly in been gunny pigs, for some crazy scientist.

• {{cquote|In women, ectopic pregnancies are generally removed as soon as possible. While a fetus of ectopic pregnancy is typically not viable (that naturally occur in females), very rarely, an abdominal pregnancy has been salvaged in females (typically women, a procedure too expensive for animals). The delivery requires a Cesarean section to remove the infant and the placenta. Removal of the placenta is the real danger because it forms such intimate connections with surrounding blood vessels that a massive hemorrhage is likely. Implantation may also involve other structures in the abdomen, including the bowel and it is possible that parts of other organs might have to be removed.{{Fact} Several physicians who are well-accustomed to advanced and dangerous forms of ectopic pregnancies have to be on-hand to handle any complication. The fetus is also in danger of complications because it is deprived of the protection of a uterus.}}

just read the ectopic pregnancy article.

• other experts in the field express serious misgivings about the process.

Again.The experts are worried about it's safety,not that it can be done.Winston him self says that it would be dangerous.

• Robert Winston, a doctor who specializes in fertility, speculates that

This is nor Winstons theory.It's unfair to presented like that. If you read thrue the other sources a bunch of doctors specualte on the fesability.Winston's name is there just because he is famous,you can remove it if you whant.It whould be misleading to present it as crank theory.

• Simon Fishel, managing director of a British fertility clinic, stated in Popular Science that artificial wombs are not far enough along to know what the side effects involved with their use might be

Todays artificial wombs are as usable, as todays fusion reactors.This technology is in it's infancy,we don't even know what they will look like.

• Intersex=you have some of both sexes

Transexual=You having a surgury to resemble the oposite sexe I think they are different enougt to let them separete

• --88.82.46.208 18:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is your problem? I worked so hard, for almost an hour, reformatting those references, and then I spent another half hour working all of your new information into the version with the improved references. Then after I ask you nicely not to revert and to instead IMPROVE the version with the references, you just revert again. You are a bad neighbor. 76.236.69.58 19:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't do a blanked revert.--88.82.46.208 21:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a few things:

1. there is no reason to title a header "Natural normal occurrence in male animals". The grammar is hideous.
2. There is no reason to put a reference WITHIN a header, as you did to the one titled "No womb"
3. "Womb" is a euphemism, not a biological term, the term is "uterus"

But most importantly, you don't seem to get it: men getting pregnant is currently SCIENCE FICTION. NO ONE has done it, no one has tried to do it. It has NEVER EVER HAPPENED. This is not the "Pregnancy in men" imaginary speculation paper. This is an encyclopedia article. This is not a place to go on and on about what you imagine that people will do. PLEASE do me a favor and read WP:OR. 76.236.69.58 20:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The section says "speculation on the issue",i never said that it happend.There are some rumors,but they aren't reliable.Fusion reactors and quantum computers too are science fiction.The material is speculation from experts,OR would be if it was my speculation,you should read OR section,not me.The sources are verifiable and notable.--88.82.46.208 21:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I took the time, again, to source all of the speculation directly to Winston. Loose statements about "the idea has been floating around for a while" are not encyclopedic, certainly not without sources. This is Winston's idea, unless you can cite more verifiable sources of other scientists talking about it.

PLEASE be more careful to use the ref name tag. One of the references was duplicated three times, and showed up in three different places in the Reference section. This is not good. Please see Citing a footnote more than once for information on how to cite a footnote multiple times. 75.61.92.169 05:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Also; I was extremely careful to explain each of my changes. I would greatly appreciate it if you would REVIEW these changes and ADD to them rather than reverting my work. If something looks like it has been removed, it has more likely been moved to another place in the paragraph. 75.61.92.169 05:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of content

I am very confused as to the behavior of 88.82.46.208. First, they insisted on including copious amounts of information, particularly unsourced speculation (see the paragraph encased in a rectangle shape in #Winston's speculation section). Then, they deleted everything except the sections on fiction and popular culture. I would like to hear an explanation for first insisting on the inclusion of lots of information, and then subsequently deleting large sections of it. In the meantime, I have restored the deleted content. 76.221.200.172 16:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The image is purely decorative.According to Wikipedia fair use criteria,fair use content must be for critical commentary.The human pregnancy speculation isn't backed by peer reviewed publications.If you find a publisher anybody can right a book,so winstons speculation isn't admissible.--88.82.46.208 20:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you or are you not the same user that argued strenuously for the inclusion of the Winston material previously? 76.221.200.172 21:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Double The Sims Mention

It was mentioned at the end of the first paragraph that "Sims 2 males can get pregnant!". This seemed out of place and was discussed in the Trivia section, which may or may not be altered. Didn't see a reason for it to be there twice, so I removed it. 75.109.33.107 (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

disputed/Speculation on inducing pregnancy in men

this sections presents it,like if it's Winston how figure this out,on his won in the desert,it's a not very new idea,and certainly he don't deserve credit for simply putting it in his book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.82.47.233 (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can prove that medical professionals prior to Winston considered and discussed methods by which they thought that male pregnancy could be accomplished, post the sources here, for discussion. As it stands, the reference to the mention made by Baron Winston is the only reference we have. Photouploaded (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Can you prouve that it's his idea?

Please sign your posts with four tildes (i.e. ~~~~), it creates work for others when you don't.

No, the statement is sourced and factual. The statement makes no claim that it was solely or only Winston's idea. All it says is that Robert Winston "speculates" upon how doctors may induce pregnancy in male humans. Speculation does not imply invention.

If you want to put forth the idea that others had the idea before Winston, you must prove it. Also, your addition of three separate dispute templates to the Winston section is overkill. Photouploaded (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop rearranging the article with no discussion. You have been blocked for this before and it will likely happen again if you don't stop. In particular, stop putting the contents of the "Pop culture" section in with the "Fiction" section. The word "Fiction" pertains to books, not movies and websites - are you familiar with the "Fiction section" of a library? Also, stop moving the "Pregnancy in transsexual and intersex people" all the way down to the bottom of the article. Previously, you were just trying to delete that section outright (which you did many times before you were blocked for disruption), so this new tactic of pushing it all the way down to the bottom seems entirely biased in nature. Please do not attempt to strongarm these edits anymore. It is not going to work. If you have some reasons you want to discuss this is the place to do it. Photouploaded (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No additional citations needed for female-to-male transsexuals

I do not see why the sentence "From an identity standpoint, these could be considered "male pregnancies", even though female physiology was involved." requires a citation. In the linked article, it clearly states: "We are transgendered men (female-to-male, or FTM). My boyfriend is the mother of my child."

The fact that Matt Rice is a transgendered man (FTM) means that he was born to a female body, and transitioned to masculinize his appearance. The aritcle outlines that Matt had transitioned prior to his pregnancy (to a male identity and appearance), and bore his child while continuing to identify as male the whole time. If someone could explain why a citation is still needed, please reply to this discussion item. Queerwiki 06:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The justification is apparent from the article, and doubly so from the sources. Thanks for removing it. --Kizor 08:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This same sentence was questioned once again recently and I'd just like to bump this section of the discussion back into view. Queerwiki (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sonjaaa's edits, 6 May 2008

I reverted the heading from "intersex and transgender men" to "intersex and transgender people" because the pregnant intersex case would *not* be an "intersex man" in general. I removed the Thomas Beatie link because it redirects to the very same page.

I realize the intent behind writing that "most men" lack a womb, but I feel it is better to be specific. "Male anatomy" lacks a womb, perhaps?

By the way, Sonjaaa, feel free to contact me directly about this too, since we already know each other. Queerwiki (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:MalePregnancy poster.jpg

I don't think that the use of this image meets the Wikipedia fair use guideline. These are the conditions of the Wikipedia guideline, commentary on whether the criteria is met is mine. I've only posted the criteria themselves, not their explanation, editors are encouraged to review the original guideline.

• No free equivalent. N A skilled artist could quickly photo manipulate a free image of a man to make it look like he's pregnant.
• Respect for commercial opportunities. Y
• Minimal usage. N The image has a resolution of 600 × 886 pixels and a size of 55 KB. That's much more than is necessary.
• Previous publication. Y
• Content. Y
• Media-specific policy. Y
• One-article minimum. Y The image is used in two articles.
• Significance. N I think this image is not crucial to the readers understanding of male pregnancy.
• Restrictions on location. Y This is an article.
• Image description page. N There isn't a rationale for the use of the image in Male pregnancy.

A non-free image must meet all 10 criteria outlined above. This one only meets six. Therefore, I believe we should remove it from the article. Puchiko (Talk-email) 21:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No reply in more than a month. Does anyone object to me removing the image? --Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this image is also in the Birth Control article and there is no fair-use rationale cited in the discussion section. How about raising this first on Birth Control, since it is probably a more popular article? If they decide it's not fair use over there, we can drop it here too. Queerwiki (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the image description page, there is a fair use rationale for the Birth Control article. And it's valid, I think the use of the image in Birth Control qualifies as fair use, but I don't think it does so here. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done User:Angr has removed the image. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 14:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

whats going on here?

can some one explain why their is a whole section on this nonsense pseudoscientific speculation of "Possible science of a human male pregnancy" but not a single sentence of the only actual and consistent male pregnancy - the sea horse - this is below wikipedia abulanov (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There was information on male pregnancy in animals in previous revisions of the article. Your additions would be welcome. Queerwiki (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I have just restored the cited paragraph on seahorses that was removed on 2008-04-04T15:29:18 in this edit by User:62.253.220.193. -84user (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

looks like a hoax

The recently added references look like to a hoax site known since at least 2006. I have added Fact and Refimprove. The rest of the article needs much better referencing too. -84user (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, malepregnancy.com is a production of the artist Lee Mingwei, see his profile on http://www.leemingwei.com/mingwei-web/mingweiFrameset-1.htm where he describes what he does and lists malepregnancy.com as one of his works under group exhibitions: "Male Pregnancy Project, Centre d’Art Santa Monica, Barcelona, Spain"

In the light of this I have removed those cites, although they might be useful for any article on Lee himself. -84user (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There's one more thing forgotten

I believe there was one more thing forgotten in the In Popular Culture section.

Wasn't there an episode of Futurama where Kif had a male pregnancy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samrikku (talk • contribs) 23:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Improving cites, but bowing out

In the section " Pregnancy among intersex and transgender people " I added the {{Refimprove}} tag back in June 4 (see Talk:Male pregnancy#whats going on here?). Here is a diff of my first edit where I add the tag and mark the two malepregnancy.com cites as not WP:RS. My next edit added a speculation tag, several Fact tags and moved the popsci.com cite to the claim it supports. That left the Womb transplants to males have been successfully performed in animals claim now supported by pravda.ru but pravda had relied on malepregnancy.com which is known as an artist's performance piece. So in that same edit I placed yet another Fact tag.

My third and last edit removed the pravda and malepregnancy.com cites, but at the same time I applied the leemingwei.com cite to the "In popular culture" section where it supports the artist's performance piece (or hoax as some have said).

I probably didn't check any further, so I assumed that the Refimprove tag should remain, for other people to check. I probably should have removed it for that section. I checked it now and that section seems Ok. One concern might be that the FTM geocities cite is answering questions that some might say should be asked of a doctor (it even disclaims "All information provided does not substitute to consult your psysican").

I think the Refimprove tag in the following section "The science of a human male abdominal ectopic pregnancy" must remain as it still has many citation needed tags, and in one case uses an article from the Independent to cite the claim "Womb transplants to males have been successfully performed in animals" which the article does not mention. -84user (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

the pravda:

“ The website of the RYT Hospital-Dwayne Medical clinic presents a detailed story of Mr. Lee Mingwei – the American artist, who became pregnant in the middle of 2002. Mingwei became the first pregnant man in history as a result of an operation, when surgeons implanted an embryo and placenta into his abdominal cavity. The website also has pictures of Mingwei's ultrasonic scanning. The story says that the man is about eight or nine months pregnant. Apparently, artists are very special when it comes to pregnancy – there seems to be no other way to explain the reason why the heroic Taiwanese American is still pregnant.(writen at 22.02.2005) ”

“ Swedish professor Mats Brannstrom also thinks that male pregnancy is an absolutely possible phenomenon to happen in modern life. The professor believes that it will also be possible to implant female uterus in a man's body. Scientists have already conducted successful experiments on animals. One just have to realize what practical use can be derived from such blatant violation of natural laws. ”

please read the three links in there entirety.--88.82.46.222 (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

POV Bias for sensitivity

"Although from the standpoint of gender identity these individuals are pregnant men, in point of fact they have XX chromosomes, as do women" Is there really a reason for this ambiguous sentance? Can we not just say something like "this person is genetcially female but still wishes to socially identify as a male." It's nice that we want to present this in a positive POV for the person but it weakens the encyclopedic value of the article. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the Matt Rice bit seriously valid?

Look fine, I have no problem with the notion of gender identity, as a social construction, being mutable and performed and so forth. But no, Matt Rice does not, in anyway, technically or 'all in how you look at it' or whatever, represent a 'male pregnancy.' When we are discussing pregnancy, the production of gametes and the fertilization proces, etc. this is a biological discssion. The entire notion of transgendered individuals does not belong in a scientific discussion. We can talk about transgendered males, females and what not with a variety of cultural studies or philosophical arguments (basically the liberal arts and sciences), but this is simply a moot point when it comes to a discussion of basic biological structures and how they reproduce. I don't care what asinine surgeries someone gets they cannot, ever, under any set of circumstances, change their biological sex. Biological structures are not somehow magically transformed due to gender politics or notions of personal identity. Matt Rice, though he may consider himself a man and may act accordingly, is biologically female. So no there is no way in which this can even be entertained or even suggested as being a possible 'male pregnancy.' That is ridiculous. I realize someone will replace this bit, but please understand why I am deleting it. The inclusion of Matt Rice in this article makes it a joke, not a serious discussion of anything. There's nothing wrong with gender politics but let's not be so arrogant as to believe humans have some sort of mastery over the base essence of natural structures just because we've formulated ideas of gender construction and performance theory. And if this article is to be about the actual biological process of pregnancy and reproduction in the male of a species or the ideas of making human male pregnancy viable, then nothing outside of the science which examines biological (not social, political, philosophical, etc.) structures should be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 05:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I was dismayed when Thomas Beatie redirected to this page because "male pregnancy" implies pregnancy in someone biologically male, yes? Matt Rice and Thomas Beatie, even if you accept their gender as male, carried pregnancies as the result of ovaries, fallopian tubes, a uterus, etc., and therefore is not male pregnancy. I don't feel that either of them should be mentioned in this article. 24.177.122.230 (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)ZuRG

Have you seen a picture of Matt Rice? (also known these days as Matt Blakk I believe) Have you heard him in an interview? Would you have any clue he was "biologically female" if you met him in person without dropping his pants? If I hadn't heard about him in a documentary about trans people, I'd have no clue. This is why I'd consider his pregnancy relevant to this topic. You can review my rational further up on this discussion page too. Queerwiki (talk) 22:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is enfreakment. There is nothing biologically unusual about a person with female genitalia and female internal sexual organs intended for pregnancy to be carrying out a pregnancy.24.177.122.230 (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)ZuRG

I understand your position, I get where you are coming from, but your points, and I mean no offense by this, are largely irrelevant. It doesn't matter what Matt Rice looks like, what he considers himself to be, or even what he may legally be considered. None of this gender/identity politics has any bearing upon the topic at hand. What Matt Rice looks like has absolutely no effect upon the fact that Matt Rice is, bologically speaking, female. This entire discussion of Matt Rice belongs in a gender politics article, not in an article detailing a biological process. No matter what we look like, how we behave, or how we conceive of ourselves there remains a base biological structure to our physical selves that is what it is. Fight it all you want, but biology is not a social construction and it isn't compelled or shaped according to the principles, philosophies, ideas or cultural debates that people create. I don't object to Matt Rice on some weird personal level, I have no issue with transgendered individuals, and I agree that his appearence flaunts the notions that some people have of gender and pregnancy. His case is interesting, it just doesn't belong here is all. Because what people perceive and what we think of when we think of a woman is not important here. When we are talking about a biological process all that matters are physiological structures that are not effected by social politics. While science is often effected by social beliefs and norms, and the practice of science is flawed because perception is flawed, we should actively seek to eliminate the effect of social/cultural ideals and beliefs by focusing solely upon inherent, natural, quantifiable facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.156.4 (talk) 06:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

... and that's your POV. I am a scientist myself - a chemist. I believe social and cultural ideals totally connect into science. They're part of the selection process that leads people to filter what they consider "natural", for example.

This section has previously been moved to other articles, and the maintainers of those articles have deleted the section swiftly. I feel that this is the most appropriate article to contain this section. Considering that male pregnancy is all about fringe scenarios and bizarre ideas, why would you object so greatly? Whether or not you have the guts to tell Matt Rice to his face that you can't possibly consider him a man, there are a lot of individuals who would have referred to him as a "pregnant man" for 9 months of his life, and never as a "pregnant woman". Queerwiki (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, obviously, from a strictly objective and scientific standpoint, transgendered pregnancy is unrelated to 'male pregnancy'. Using ovaries/uterus just like any other woman would is certainly not the same thing as getting an actual man (who who normally have neither) pregnant. 'Self-identity', and even plastic surgery, has nothing to do with direct reproductive functions. The same is true for Thomas Beatie. Someone who is female by both organs and hormones getting pregnant is simply not the same topic as getting men pregnant. Physiologically speaking, it's just apples and oranges.

However, that said, people who, for whatever reason, are interested in male pregnancy will probably also be interested in other topics that touch on the same general concepts. Similarly, people looking up Thomas Beatie or Matt Rice will likely be interested in 'male pregnancy'. As such, as far as the article is concerned, it makes sense to keep all of this information together. Remember, it's all about providing readers with the information they may be looking for, nothing else. 209.90.135.51 (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it makes sense as far as the article is concerned. I disagree with you on the "strictly objective and scientific" bit, but both our points of view result in the same content being in the article. :) Queerwiki (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This whole section reads as if facts are being covered up. Is this person someone who is genetically a female but socially identifies as a male? If so can we please reword this in a clear non-pov manner? Thank you. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Red Dwarf Reference

Wasn't there a male pregrancy in ep 206 of red dwarf? can't find a citation or id add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.198.84.34 (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.203.58 (talk) 20:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Beatie: Cultural constructs DO NOT BECOME PREGNANT

Cultural constructs DO NOT BECOME PREGNANT. Thomas Beatie (XX) may have chopped up its body to identify with a particular construct but for the purpose pregnancy Thomas Beatie is a FEMALE (XX), NOT A MALE (XY). All references to Thomas Beatie and the like should be removed. This is an insult to intelligent thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.147.52 (talk) 11:20, 23 November, 2008 (UTC)

The word "male" has more than one use among English speakers. There are biological and sociological meanings (sex versus gender). Even "biologically male" is an oversimplification. A human can be genetically male (has a Y chromosome), but this alone does not determine that the person will be anatomically male (see androgen insensitivity) or that the person will have a male gender identity. Likewise, a person with no Y chromosome (genetically a female) may identify as a male. Yes, male and female gender (and everything outside and in between) are social constructs, but there may be a biological (maybe genetic, maybe developmental/ environmental) reason that a person relates to a certain gender better than others.

As long as the article is explicit about the potential differences between genetic males, anatomical males, and transsexual males (gender), I think pregnancies in any of these groups are relevant to the article.

Most of the anti-Thomas Beatie comments have an angry, sarcastic tone. I don't think the users' motivation is just concern for the quality of the article. If they want to debate whether the word "male" should be used in an encyclopedia to mean "having a male gender identity," they should frame the question that way. Emmastaffron (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I was born with an incomplete cleft palate. It is interesting to learn that I did not since it is nowhere in my genotype.
To address your actual concern, the fact is that Thomas Beatie has received extensive publicity in connection to this concept, and is probably the best-known thing associated with male pregnancy. Any article on male pregnancy is going to have to describe how Beatie figures into it, or it'll leave its readers wondering. At the same time Thomas Beatie is only of interest in relation to the concept, so having both in the same article is the only sensible way to organize the information.

What we can do is cover what the press has written about Beatie and describe the biological facts of the pregnancy. Since all people involved appear to feel that their position is apparent from the facts, that should satisfy everyone. (Or alternatively get hardliners from both sides mad at us, which is a much more fulfilling way of knowing we've got a good article. --Kizor 22:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"Most men lack a womb"

Uh, don't all human males lack a womb? "Most" implies that there's been at least one who has had it naturally, which I don't believe has ever been the case in recorded human history. That part should be re-worded. And why is the movie Junior not mentioned? It's about male pregnancy, kinda surprises me it's not included in the article. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but it sounds like just the kind of thing I would write if I felt I'd get away with it. Junior was mentioned initially - it must've gotten lost in the shuffle. Article content is too often a result of entropy rather than purposeful organization... --Kizor 22:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely improbable. I mean, anything is possible. So to some extent, the writer of that sentence fragment is in support of the fact that there could be men that naturally has one. However, it's 100% improbable, because odds are you'll never be lucky in finding a male that has had a womb naturally.--Jonah Ray Cobbs 01:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Jonah Ray Cobbs 01:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)JRC3

So, perhaps it's just vandalism, but the author put the word "most" to make us believe that it's happened before. It's not like we can look at every individual male that has ever existed in our human race and look at all of their records. If you'd ask me, I would go on ahead and delete that piece of information because I doubt any men has had a womb. However, doing so could change the article in any way.--Jonah Ray Cobbs 01:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Jonah Ray Cobbs 01:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)JRC3

A 32 year old Indian man in Bijapur had his uterus removed in 2004 (he didn't have a vagina, ovaries, or any other female reproductive organs). It's possible but it's occurrence is so infrequent that it can be neglected for the broader purpose of this article. I also wanted to point out that 'male' and 'man' aren't synonymous, and that transgender men are essentially female men, not males. Though they adopt the male gender role, they should be referred to as 'men' or 'transmen' in this article to avoid confusion. 96.225.33.30 (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be mentioned - male pregnancy in humans is even rarer if the appropriate definitions are used. Rich Farmbrough, 12:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC).

Here is what I learned from Wikipedia: The differentiation between the sexes is very subtle and brittle; almost every mix seems to occur occasionally. E.g. there are people who have two complete sets of chromosomes; some parts of their body contain one set, and the rest contains the other set. In animals this has been observed with the two sets of chromosomes being of opposite sex. See intersexuality#"True hermaphroditism". There seem to be many other mechanisms that produce such phenomena.

Perhaps the article should distinguish between pregnancy of "normal" males and pregnancy of mostly male individuals that have some female characteristics making pregnancy possible??? Hans Adler 21:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up references "Male ectopic pregnancy by implantation"

Male Ectopic Pregnancy in Mammals should be referenced in terms of biology (as it is in the Snopes article) Not in terms of some internet hoax.

Is there a reason why Male Ectopic Pregnancy in mammals is listed as essentially nothing other than the Snopes article on Lee Mingwei and his hoax? That sort of demeans the fertility scientists who have studied this (as the Snopes article itself points out, the science is sound, but of course devalued considerably by the hoax, and ignores the fact that it would never be tried in humans: such a procedure would be unacceptably dangerous to both the fetus and the host.)

The subject was written up in several scientific and popular journals long before this guy Lee Mingwei came along, whenever that was. Sure, it's not likely to happen in humans, but the original idea pretty much was the inspiration for the movie Junior. It is speculative science, not fantasy. And I don't think Wikipedia should reward hoaxes by referencing them in an article on a scientific subject.

As I recall, ectopic pregnancy was induced in male mice but the embryos were not brought to term. I'm not especially knowledgeable about the subject, but the only place I've seen it referenced is in science articles, neither Wikipedia nor Lee Mingwei having existed at the time, and the Snopes article basically dovetails with what I remember reading. I actually came to this page looking for info on that subject. Not on what someone thinks about some recent hoax, or pop culture joke.

In any case, the relevant section header should be Male Ectopic Pregnancy In Mammals, not humans, since I'm pretty positive it's only been studied in mice.

Why does Snopes have more information on male ectopic pregnancy than Wikipedia? Fixed, using citations given in the existing article. 216.15.63.67 (talk) 06:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• On Edit: I have cleaned up the references accordingly,

Including poorly formatted citations referencing the subject, and changed the name of the subject header to reflect accepted terminology for a health sciences article:

Added context to the Popular Science article citation, detailing sources explaining why male ectopic pregnancy would remain theoretical only because of the danger to the host (see ectopic pregnancy).

Changed name to "Male ectopic pregnancy by implantation" since the original subject header, "Male pregnancy in humans", is neither proper terminology nor relevant: humans are not likely test subjects.

Cleaned up references to the hoax site, since the existing references did not make clear which references were part of the hoax site. 216.15.63.67 (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Added separate section for seahorses

Since they are the only family of animals where the subject of the article occurs in nature. --berr 216.15.63.67 (talk) 09:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The "science" of male abdominal ectopic pregnancy - Deletion

I really think this section needs to be removed. If nobody objects within the next few weeks I'll go ahead and delete it. As tagged by others it has no citations, and seems to argue its points as though it were original research and not encyclopedic content. (Also, I don't know if 'ectopic' can be applied here - an ectopic pregnancy results from an egg implanting in a fallopian tube and bursting said tube, then gestating in the woman's abdomen. I don't see how that applies to something artificially implanted in a male abdomen. And...does it seem to anyone else like a plot synopsis for the movie Junior? ;P ) --Dbutler1986 (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That is because the movie Junior was based on the "science" in question which predates the hoax by a good ten years. The section should refer to Male ectopic pregnancy by transplantation in mammals since it is unlikely to be studied in humans for obvious reasons. However the science is sound and has nothing to do with the hoax that appeared ten years later.

Bottom line is that it's a theoretical concept deserving of mention in an article on that concept, with caveats, just like Wikipedia has an article on human cloning I'm sure, another idea that is crackpot but scientifically valid. 216.15.63.67 (talk) 09:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The "science" of male abdominal ectopic pregnancy

I went ahead and deleted this section. All of the information was taken verbatim from [6] which is listed on [7] as being false and merely an exercise in fiction Chicharron (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Chicharron

The section should not have been deleted since the original sources for the subject of abdominal transplantation predate the Lee Mingwei hoax by a decade, and originally refers to a study in mice, I believe (which this article does not seem to cite). Therefore the subject should have referred to mammals not humans, and not have been cited to a hoax website. Obviously whoever wrote that section was taken in by a piggyback pseudoscience hoax that has nothing to do with the actual science. The actual science states that implantation of an embryo in a male is possible in mammals but would not be studied in humans for obvious reasons.

The current section is based on the existing text from the article as of Jan 2010 with legitimate citations. I also cleaned up the references to the hoax to clarify that the citations led to the hoax site. 216.15.63.67 (talk) 09:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

1985 Omni Article and two interesting citations

It seems all this back-and-forth stems from an article written in Omni Magazine in 1985.

William Leith (2008-04-10). "Pregnant men: hard to stomach?". Telegraph. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Dick Teresi (1994-11-27). "How To Get A Man Pregnant". The New York Times. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

I couldn't find anything on induced ectopic pregnancies in mice, but perhaps someone more interested in this subject can use these cites to pursue the issue further to more scholorly RS's.

Note that most of the recent articles on the subject (which dismiss the more recent hoax) rely on both the Omni article and secondary sources (experts in the field) who do not dispute the article. It appears to be accepted science, but unjustifiable for clinical application.

Also note that according to the New York Times piece, the guy who wrote the original article, Dick Teresi, raised $500,000 to attempt a male pregnancy, only to discover that Cecil Jacobson, a prominent researcher in the field of fertility medicine, had committed feloniously unethical acts.

Should the following paragraph be added to the relevant section on ectopic implantation? I wrote it up based on the added cites:

Reports of male ectopic implantation originate from a 1985 science article in Omni Magazine. According to author Dick Teresi, physician and researcher Cecil Jacobson claimed to have transplanted a fertilized egg from a female baboon to the omentum in the abdominal cavity of a male baboon in the mid-1960's at George Washington University Medical School. Jacobson said the baboon carried the fetus for four months but he did not let the pregnancy go to term; nor did he publish the study in a scientific journal. Experts in the field of fertility medicine stress that the concept of implantation in a biologically male patient is theoretically plausible, but would be dangerous and unethical in practice.

Given that, and given that this is effectively a primary source, quoting hearsay a claim by a reputation-destroyed (albeit famous) researcher, I'm not sure it should unless someone can provide additional citation.

The baboon incident, while no one seems to claim it didn't happen, may be classed as WP:FRINGE and hence non-encyclopedic, due to the fact that it was not published in a scholarly journal (notwithstanding the researcher's subsequent prominence and reputation for unethical behavior).

Does anyone have a cite for the original Omni Magazine article?

--berr 216.15.63.67 (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Clean-up

Would be nice if someone could check the vocabulary being used -- transgender and transsexual are not the same thing. Transgenderism doesn't automatically imply having changed sexes; transexualism DOES. Beatie was transsexual, not transgender, and any references to transgender entities who have actually changed sex should be referred to as transsexual instead. For those curious about the distinction, you might look into the "transgender vs transsexual" section of the transgender wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.47.80 (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"Pregnancy in female-to-male transgender persons"

While this is certainly true as a legal technicality, the lead of the article seems to firmly define the topic as using scientific definitions (ex: "the male of a species"). Regardless of what the culture's position on gender identity is, the fact remains that this men were not "males of the species". I believe that section should be part of the popular culture section, if anything - the articles about them were a prominent response to the topic within popular culture, and for all intents and purposes, they are not "factual examples of the topic". From wikipedia's guidelines for popular culture coverage, this actually seems like the exemplary info to make the section from.24.13.125.86 (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

E h?

"The latter's attempts are somewhat feasible; the former ignores the matter completely." Context? Rich Farmbrough 10:13 7 April 2006 (UTC).

If this is still relevant, sure. Junior gives some medical background and handwaving, the latter ignores the impossibility of the matter. --Kizor 07:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is this possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.197.32.187 (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed fan fiction para

The article stated: "Male pregnancy is frequently seen in fan fiction. Such stories are marked as the genre "mpreg", a portmanteau of the words "male" and "pregnancy" coined by two writers using the pseudonyms Taleya Joinson and Texas Ranger. In 1998 they created, and since then have maintained, what is believed to be the first fan fiction archive dedicated to stories of this genre." This unsourced claim really is nothing more than thinly disguised promotion material for a website that's now defunct anyway. It does not seem encyclopedic so I removed it. 71.175.28.121 (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was a legitimate reference. The site shut down in early 2000 - it was NOT a promotional reference, but a reference to the original archive where the word was coined. If I wanted to be promotional, I would have referenced another archive that is still active. However, that second site was not the origin of the word, or maintained by the original two workers.

The portmanteu is correct, and a literal explanation of the origin of the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.75.38 (talk) 06:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I might mention here that I was quite surprised to find nothing about fan fiction. It's a pretty big thing, as I understand it. Ever wonder (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, Mpreg, to my knowledge a term confined to fanfic contexts, still redirects here. I really think something should be restored; if I can get around to finding a reference I might do it myself. Ever wonder (talk) 12:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

stupid concept

A person who is male cannot give birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.176.252 (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Pregnancy among transsexual and intersex people

in what way this is relevent to this article?--88.82.47.233 (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's relevant because:

a) A trans man identifies and usually passes as male after hormones. Most people would not guess from outward appearances that he still had some female anatomy. If he interrupts hormones to become pregnant, then someone regarded as a man is now pregnant. If some dude in the cubicle next to me at work started growing a baby in his belly and explained it was possible because of his internal organs, I would consider it relevant to the topic of male pregnancy.

b) The XY chromosome usually produces men with "typical" male anatomy. Hypothetical discussions of male pregnancy involve figuring out ways to get a person with XY chromosomes to carry a child to term (nearly all women who can conceive children are XX). An intersex person who has XY chromosomes and a mainly female body is still someone who could have developed as anatomically male under slightly different conditions at birth. If this person can carry a fetus to term, it is relevant to the topic of male pregnancy.

—Queerwiki (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I added back a sentence that clarifies the intersex scenario. It was removed in April when I wasn't looking. Discussion can go here :) Queerwiki (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"Some intersex people with XY chromosomes develop entirely female bodies and, if the individual has a uterus, can gestate an embryo conceived in the lab.[3] The typical karyotype for a male is XY, so in this case the pregnant person has a Y chromosome."

This is patently false. Nobody with a Y chromosome ever has even a partially (let alone entirely) female body. Why has nobody removed this yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What about people with 5-alpha-reductase deficiency or Swyer syndrome? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, there are several conditions that result in people with Y chromosomes developing mostly or entirely female bodies. More information on this can be found by researching intersex conditions. One of my good friends has XXY chromosomes and was born with a fully female body; that individual has since transitioned hormonally and surgically to male. I also met a woman this past year who did not discover until middle-age that she had XY chromosomes and that this was the reason she had never ovulated or menstruated. Queerwiki (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The condition above, a middle-aged woman with XY chromosomes who never menstruated, is almost certainly Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. XX and XY pregnancies develop the same way, toward female genitalia, until the introduction of testosterone to activate a "male switch", resulting in the creation of male internal sexual organs and external genitalia from female equivalent structures. CAIS is a condition, specifically a cell mutation where a fetus's cells cannot respond to androgen in the mother's bloodstream and thus, cannot develop male genitalia. CAIS in XY individuals yields a 100% female external appearance, but she is sterile. (This was featured on an episode of House MD, something about a 15-year-old supermodel.) CAIS can occur in XX individuals, but it's almost impossible to diagnose because few doctors have reason to search for why a fertile woman has a body that looks and acts like that of a fertile woman's. In the reverse direction, consider Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, where an XX fetus's genitalia are midway between male and female genitalia (varying degrees) due to a surge of testosterone in the mother's bloodstream triggering an impartial activation of the "male switch" resulting in an incomplete transformation of genitalia. 24.177.122.230 (talk) 13:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC) ZuRG

I was under the impression that an androgen-insensitive XY individual has external and certain internal female anatomy, but no uterus. I learned (in a biological anthropology class) that they have a "blind vagina," which is closed at the top and does not lead to a uterus. However, I'm sure the variation in anatomy is enormous among XY females. Can someone find a cite one way or the other (has there been a documented case of an XY individual having a uterus)? I'd be interested to know, and it's certainly relevant to the article. Emmastaffron (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Media Deception

I added this news which now solved the no reference template in Beatie, since she was and is really female and not male: It turned however, to a great media fraud to forward the homosexual and transsexual agenda "Thomas Beatie", an ex-beauty queen, is really Tracy Lagondino, a lesbian who underwent transsexual surgery which altered her breasts, removed her reproductive organs, and let her grow a beard due to a testosterone. Reuters reported that "Beatie, 34, who lives in Oregon, was born a woman but decided to become a man 10 years ago". --Florentino floro (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you substantiate the statement that homo- and transsexuals have a unified cohesive plan that the media is deliberately progressing? Or am I misunderstanding the phrase "homosexual agenda"? I've seen it around a few times but have never gotten the hang of the definition. --Kizor 12:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

In short, Thomas does not have a penis and has a vagina as reported in the press. 76.10.162.120 (talk) 04:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Beatie isn't "really" female, he isn't "really" Tracy Lagondino, he isn't a "she", nor is it anyone's "decision" to be a man at heart, transitioning to male is following a natural instinct. He used his womb to have children because it was his only choice, facing his wife's infertility. A penis or a vagina is just one small piece of tissue, one part of a human being's body, and there's no rule that should be the particular feature should decide whether or not someone is a man or a woman. If you lose your penis in an accident, do you no longer consider yourself a complete man? Accepting all this as such and referring to him as a man isn't called progressing a homosexual agenda, it's called not being a ****ing bigot. 91.145.101.176 (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

References

fan fiction reference

I added one sentence stating "male pregnancy is also commonly explored in fan fiction." with a scholarly source cited. Was reverted by someone saying it duplicates Reproduction and pregnancy in speculative fiction. Look, if we wanted absolutely no duplication, this page would just say "male pregnancy is when a male is pregnant. See also seahorse, couvade syndrome,Reproduction and pregnancy in speculative fiction, transgender. " -- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Another scholarly source: http://books.google.com/books?id=sKBa9PzhwisC&pg=PA27 -- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
By the way, my edit summary here should have read "undoing revert. Please accept that some concepts may be mentioned in multiple articles", instead of "undoing revert. Please accept that some articles may mention". Guess I had a brain fart when typing the summary.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Male pregnancy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/fasterthanlife_2000/ftm.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011012449/http://annals.edu.sg/pdf/34VolNo10200511/V34N10p646.pdf to http://annals.edu.sg/pdf/34VolNo10200511/V34N10p646.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Spelling?

§ Popular culture includes (here) a description from the series Ben 10: Alien Force, excerpted here:

In the Ben 10: Alien Force episode "Save the last dance" it is revealed that Necrofriggians ... have an ability to asexually reproduce once every 80 years.... Due to the Nercofriggian reproduction cycle...

Whichever spelling is correct should be substituted for the incorrect one. --Thnidu (talk) 07:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. I found the correct spelling ("Necro-") and fixed the section. Yes, I know wikis aren't considered reliable sources; but this is a fandom subject, and I'm not citing these sites' assertions, I'm just seeing how people familiar with this series spell the word. --Thnidu (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Male pregnancy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090309231457/http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/19990222/ile22048.html to http://www.indianexpress.com/ie/daily/19990222/ile22048.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619081203/http://www.leemingwei.com/mingwei-web/mingweiFrameset-1.htm to http://www.leemingwei.com/mingwei-web/mingweiFrameset-1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

"an Equidae"

This is surely incorrect - "Equidae" is the name of a whole family of animals, and so cannot be combined with the singular article "an". The same error occurs in the article on the Three Stooges' episode "Even as IOU", and I've made the same comment there.213.127.210.95 (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Male pregnancy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015014225/http://www.popsci.com/popsci/futurebody/0a6d9371b1d75010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html to http://www.popsci.com/popsci/futurebody/0a6d9371b1d75010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141222113256/http://www.vegmomos.com/pregnant-man-gave-birth-brother-36-years/ to http://www.vegmomos.com/pregnant-man-gave-birth-brother-36-years/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Male transgender pregnancy

The article is about pregnancy in biologically male organisms, like the very first line of the article says, not about pregnancy in organisms / people with a male gender identity, so references to pregnancy in transmen is off-topic. If anything a reference to pregancy in transwomen could be inserted. 78.54.78.232 (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The article currently has one (1) single well-referenced sentence on pregnancy in transgender males (transgender men), with a link to the main article, which is reasonable / appropriate (DUE). I am not necessarily opposed to revising the section to be broader, though, e.g. changing the section header to "Transgender pregnancy" and then adding, after the current sentence, a sentence about how, among male-assigned/"biologically male" (as some people put it) people, there have been efforts to allow pregnancy (this was for example Lili Elbe's intention in getting a uterus transplant in the 1930s). -sche (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

In this article it talks about genetic males in humans giving birth

That is technically false. Most of those cases of genetical males giving birth where people who had donated eggs implanted in them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 21:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)