Immanentize the Eschaton

I didn’t have a blog when this was first in the news, but the morning shows, Ophrah, etc. are covering it again, so I’ve got another shot.

A woman has a double mastectomy. She later has a baby (and then maybe another one). There’s nothing special or interesting about it (unless you’re the woman in question). It happens frequently. If Christina Applegate got pregnant, it would be in the news because it’s Christina Applegate, not because she had a double mastectomy.

So why is anyone making a big deal about the so-called “pregnant man”? This is not a biological miracle. S/he was born with ovaries, a uterus, and a vagina. S/he had her breasts removed and took hormones to grow facial hair and increase muscle mass (much like the East German Swim Team). Why is it a big deal that s/he got pregnant? S/he was born with all the necessary equipment! Personally, I think it would be more newsworthy if, after “gender reassignment surgery”, s/he fathered a child! THAT would be a feat worthy of not only Ophrah, but the whole hour on “60 Minutes”!

I guess it’s the freak-show aspect of it. It’s like the Bearded Lady in old-time side shows. Ophrah and Diane Sawyer and everyone may say they’re exploring issues of gender and identity (though personally, I don’t know any men who want to get pregnant), but in reality they know that if they advertise a pregnant man, they’ll get RATINGS. Even if it’s really a breast-less woman who has been taking male hormones.

(And why isn’t anyone screaming about the effect of those hormones on the baby? Or are we only concerned with “the children” in the abstract?)