Morning Joe panelists "sick[ened]" by story of pregnant transgender man
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
On the April 4 edition of Morning Joe, co-hosts Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, and Willie Geist discussed Thomas Beatie, a pregnant transgender man, and his April 3 appearance on Oprah, during which Scarborough said, "I'm not going to look at this," and Brzezinski said: "I'm going to be sick. I am going to be sick." Scarborough also asked, "What are you doing to me?" before going on to suggest that the father was alternately a "parrot" and "[a] former aide of [former New Jersey Gov.] Jim McGreevey." Later Scarborough said: "Please, let's move on. I really do feel sick."
Salon.com's Thomas Rogers highlighted the panelists' comments, calling them "profoundly appalling" in an April 7 post.
When Brzezinski asked who the baby's father is, if Beatie is the mother, Scarborough said: "The parrot at the pet shop." After Geist explained that the sperm came "from another place," Scarborough said, "A former aide of Jim McGreevey."
As the panel continued discussing Beatie's pregnancy, Scarborough again brought up McGreevey and asked: "Are the McGreeveys involved in this in any way?"
The panel discussed Beatie's pregnancy again in a later segment, during which Scarborough referred to an April 4 New York Post article on Beatie as being about "[t]his dude having a baby with ... a parrot that perhaps came from the McGreeveys."
From the April 4 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
GEIST: It's not every day you meet a couple expecting a baby --
BRZEZINSKI: Aw.
SCARBOROUGH: Ooh. Can I avert the next --
GEIST: -- where it's the man who's pregnant.
SCARBOROUGH: Oh, wait.
BRZEZINSKI: What did you just say?
SCARBOROUGH: I'm closing my eyes. I'm not going to look at this.
GEIST: Thomas Beatie, 34-year-old transgender man, used to be a woman --
SCARBOROUGH: Tell me when it's over, Mika.
GEIST: -- from Oregon, and he is six months pregnant. See, the deal is, when she had the surgery --
BRZEZINSKI: I don't want to know the deal.
SCARBOROUGH: I'm not looking.
GEIST: She kept -- became a man, but kept the parts -- the female parts.
BRZEZINSKI: Willie, you are topping the list of "News You Can't Use." And why Oprah would do this --
GEIST: He was on Oprah yesterday. We saw this story actually a couple of weeks ago. We thought it might be a hoax, so we didn't use it, but --
SCARBOROUGH: Yeah.
GEIST: -- Oprah has legitimized it. And it gets worse.
BRZEZINSKI: What?
GEIST: You're not only going to want to cover your eyes, but now your ears, when you hear --
BRZEZINSKI: I don't want to hear.
GEIST: -- from the man's wife --
BRZEZINSKI: No.
GEIST: -- how this all came to pass.
BRZEZINSKI: What?
[begin video clip]
NANCY BEATIE (Thomas Beatie's wife): I went to the vet --
OPRAH WINFREY: Mm-hmm.
N. BEATIE: -- and -- because we have some birds at home --
WINFREY: Mm-hmm.
N. BEATIE: -- and I asked for a syringe, you know, without a needle --
WINFREY: Mm-hmm.
N. BEATIE: -- and they gave us one, and got our container of sperm.
T. BEATIE: It's a very delicate procedure, it can't be exposed to air for too long, and you have --
WINFREY: Oh, really?
T. BEATIE: -- to kind of pipe it into the syringe.
[end video clip]
BRZEZINSKI: I'm going to be sick. I am going to be sick.
SCARBOROUGH: Ugh, God, what are you doing?
BRZEZINSKI: Hold on a second -- I'm still confused.
SCARBOROUGH: What are you doing?
GEIST: Go ahead.
SCARBOROUGH: What are you doing to me?
BRZEZINSKI: I --
GEIST: I have all the facts. What would you like to know?
BRZEZINSKI: I'm confused. I want to know --
SCARBOROUGH: The facts?
GEIST: Let's dig into this a little bit.
SCARBOROUGH: We don't want the facts.
BRZEZINSKI: No, but if he's -- if he's the mother --
SCARBOROUGH: I can't handle the facts.
BRZEZINSKI: Wait. If he's the mother, who's the father?
GEIST: It came --
SCARBOROUGH: The parrot at the pet shop.
GEIST: No, it came from another place.
BRZEZINSKI: Ugh, God!
SCARBOROUGH: A former aide of Jim McGreevey.
BRZEZINSKI: Stop it.
GEIST: I -- it's the part about going to the vet that really gets my goat.
SCARBOROUGH: I just -- [laughs] -- that "gets my goat"?
BRZEZINSKI: You know what?
SCARBOROUGH: Please, let's move on.
BRZEZINSKI: Willie?
SCARBOROUGH: I really do feel sick.
GEIST: Well here's --
BRZEZINSKI: This is, like, the most disgust, I just --
GEIST: -- front page of the New York Post today. There's the parrot, Joe.
SCARBOROUGH: There is a parrot.
BRZEZINSKI: Oh, yeah.
SCARBOROUGH: Fresh from the parrot.
BRZEZINSKI: "Pregnant man's baby joy" --
GEIST: Come on, they're happy.
BRZEZINSKI: I am upset.
GEIST: Happiness comes in different shapes and sizes.
SCARBOROUGH: Are the McGreeveys involved in this in any way?
BRZEZINSKI: Will you be quiet? Now, why do you -- I mean, it's bad enough.
SCARBOROUGH: Naw, I'm just curious.
GEIST: Leave my former governor out of this, OK?
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah. They've got triple problems, or whatever.
SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, it seems like your former governor [inaudible].
BRZEZINSKI: All right, well, Willie, that was --
GEIST: We'll be sure to revisit that in the next hour.
SCARBOROUGH: Let's not.
GEIST: -- just to get a little more --
BRZEZINSKI: That was not only stupid and useless --
GEIST: -- little more comprehensive.
BRZEZINSKI: -- but quite frankly, disgusting.
GEIST: Maybe to you. I find it beautiful to bring a new life into the world. All right, here's a story that I'm going to apologize for in advance for this --
SCARBOROUGH: Oh my God. Is it worse than that?
GEIST: -- brought to my attention by one of our producers --
BRZEZINSKI: It can't be worse.
[...]
SCARBOROUGH: This is an interesting story you picked out earlier this morning --
BRZEZINSKI: Yeah.
SCARBOROUGH: It's The Wall Street Journal talking about the future of newsmagazines.
BRZEZINSKI: Uh-huh. Yeah.
SCARBOROUGH: And of course, the story on the New York Post --
BRZEZINSKI: I don't want to see this, actually.
SCARBOROUGH: -- that Willie Geist is very interested in.
BRZEZINSKI: Why, Willie?
SCARBOROUGH: This dude having a baby with --
GEIST: Hits close to home.
SCARBOROUGH: It does hit close to home. With a parrot that perhaps came from the McGreeveys.
BRZEZINSKI: What?
SCARBOROUGH: We'll check into that later.
BRZEZINSKI: You know --
Well... what the hell, the Morning Joe panelists often sicken me.
Used to really like Mika but she has become somewhat insipid. Well, I guess not "become" I'm just noticing it more.
I guess she has revealed herself finally.
What a disappointment.
I think the whole thing is fascinating. Odd, of course, but really fascinating.
This story is sick!
A mutilated woman, posing as a man is having a baby?!? How selfish of this couple (not sure what they're a couple of) to impose their sick lifestyle on an innocent child!
Not as sick, methinks, as the enforced exercises in sexual promiscuity @ the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS) compound in Texas, according to just-released court documents.
Which those singing the rather awful "Christian Persecution!" singsong meme are likely claiming even as I speak....
They are at least equally bad.
The FLDS cult abused women and children in the name of God.
This "couple" is having a baby as a social experiment which will destroy his/her mental development.
Both sound pretty sick to me. The big difference here between conservatives and liberals on this issue is that conservatives hate both situations, while some liberals celebrate when a "man" has a baby with "his" partner.
"This "couple" is having a baby as a social experiment which will destroy his/her mental development."
You know that for a fact, do you? Do you make a good living with those amazing powers to read the future?
>>Thomas Beatie, a pregnant transgender man<<
Correction: This is a woman who took steroids. The fact remains that a man cannot become pregnant. To think otherwise is nonsense.
Whatver Tommy Beatie is, it is NOT a man.
"Whatver Tommy Beatie is, it is NOT a man."
So what? And what's with the "it"?
When "it" decides what "it" wants to be, then we'll be able to call "it" something. Until then, "it" is still an "it". A lot like how humans are called "it" before they are born.
Isaiah 53:6
Always making your own headlines there Phillib...reading comprehension would be nice. The "it" the above post is about someone born already. So you have strayed already. But no playing with you today...more important business, cat litter needs changed etc.
To connect this with a recent Con attack on Obama concerning the "punishment of having a baby", I guess that as hard as it must be that the Cons approve of having this child. Or do they?
I won't suggest where you can shove your bible...I'm sure you already know. Not everyone wants to live by YOUR biblical proscriptions. Keep it to yourself.
The fact is, she is a woman. She has the chromosomes which make her a woman. She has the reproductive parts that most women have. She has taken steroids to begin the transgender process. But first, she'd like to have a baby. She would then, most likely, have the operation to change her outward appearance, including male sexual organs. No matter what happens, s/he (I'm trying to be respectful) will always technically be a woman (unless you do something with her chromosomes). It's her life. It's her choice. I see nothing wrong with it. Of course, you right-wing totalitarianists would love nothing more than to tell others what they can do with their bodies.
Phil, I suggest that if you really want to judge others, you probably should start with yourself first - perfect yourself - then begin judging. The rest of us will wait.
"Of course, you right-wing totalitarianists would love nothing more than to tell others what they can do with their bodies."
And they want to do that all because they don't want to have to "explain it to their children." Think of the children!
These guys, I tell ya-- they're sexists, that's what it is-- no matter who's is at question.
What kind of admission test do they give over there at MSNBC?
I feel that once he decided (you notice that I said he and not "it") to become a man, he should have done so all the way including the female organs. Maybe he wasn't at that stage yet, but do feel he wouldn't have taken the first step to becoming a man without years of agonizing heartache for himself and his family.
Perhaps the couple's wanting a baby so badly was the overriding factor in determing the manner in which is was done. Joe, and his cohorts, are lucky that their lives have been so blessed that they don't have to deal with issues such as this. We all are for that matter.
Agreed. To be honest I'm not really sure how I feel about the whole thing. As always I fall back on "who are they hurting?" So I can't say "I'm sickened by it" or any such nonsense. But I have to admit that when my [F2M transgendered] friend brought the story to my attention (the original story, not the Bill-O, J-Scar backlash) I did not exactly share his enthusiasm.
To me it's niether a "medical miracle" or "an abomination". I guess it just is what it is. So I guess "indifferent" is hopw I feel about it. I guess I have to give Joe some credit for actually considering this person "male." Many people don't. But the conversation should have been been a bit more mature. Given the situatiuon, it's really not all that shocking. He still had the "parts" afterall.
Personally, I don't think it matters. Like someone said earlier .... who are they harming?
Isn't it obvious? A mutilated woman, posing as a man, is giving birth to a child and living with a women (maybe) in a two-parent home. How could this not confuse a child?
This "couple" is playing games with the life of this child.
How do you know I'm a bigot?
Maybe I'm just honest. If this "man" wants to play pretend with his partner, it's his/her/whatever's right to do so in this country. They should have no right to expose that lifestyle to an impressionable child.
Isn't it obvious?
Thank you Nerzog for proving my point.
Liberals don't care about children. They don't mind killing babies before or sometimes during birth, so, why should they care if a child's mental development is stunted by growing up in an environment with an absent sperm-donor father, a female-to-male transgender surrogate-birth father, and a lesbian mother? Just repeating that phrase sounds like Jerry Springer material!
You don't make any sense.
You say we cons want to starve children. What are you talking about? Name 1 conservative policy that promotes the starving of children. You fail to mention the "progressive" policy of infanticide aka abortion.
Your problem is that you want to flip our morality upside down----everything that was once sick and immoral is now beautiful and moral, and everything that was once good and decent is now dirty and backwards. Whenever you are confronted with an opposing viewpoint, (or the truth in this case), you attack us for being 'ignorant and bigoted'.
You want an example of blind ignorance? How about your inability to see that there is an innocent party in this mess that has to deal with the reality that his parents are psychotic?
You want an example of bigotry? How about your declaration that anyone who speaks the truth on this must hate gays?
Your arguments are nothing more than gratuitous assertions, based on blind bigotry and steeped in Bronze Age fairy tales.
"Truth? You wouldn't know truth.... or logic, for that matter.... if it jumped out of your ass and ate your nutsack. "
If that ever happened, would it make me a women, or just a mutilated man?
" Your arguments are nothing more than gratuitous assertions, based on blind bigotry and steeped in Bronze Age fairy tales."
My arguments are based on truth and logic. You can't understand them because the truth hurts, and because your a liberal. Truth and liberalism never mix.
The only religion you believe in is moral relativism. If you were a Christian, you would understand that there's a huge difference between tolerance and acceptance. We all have to tolerate this behavior, because we live in a country that allows it--fair enough. We certainly don't have to accept it.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe the reason many of us "bigots" feel the way we do is because we actually care about the people involved? Maybe we're actually willing to tell these people the truth instead of lying to them, and encouraging them to live the lie.
You know, if I go running around saying something crazy like, "I'm a banana", they would throw me into the nut farm. (If i said "I'm a progressive", or "I'm a liberal" they ought to throw you in too, but that's a topic for another thread). But if I go around and say "I'm a pregnant man", people like you would say that's my "life choice".
Maybe if you stop acting like such an anti-religous, self-righteous bigot, you'd see that people who disagree with your crazy viewpoints aren't knuckle-dragging, gay bashing cavemen.
You're a lost cause, so I'll make this brief:
Tolerance is allowing others to be different without judging them and you are miles from that. It IS accepting them for who they want to be.
Tolerance is allowing others to be different, but it doesn't require or imply acceptance. We can tolerate that there are gay people, non-Christians, liberals, etc. Power to you, this is America. But tolerance doesn't mean that I have to accept that deviant behavior is ok----it doesn't mean that my opinion must change because someone else behaves a certain way. In other words, tolerance is a two-way street, and you and others on this site are clearly intolerant of my opinion, which is shared by many non-bigoted people.
You have denigrated this person over and over and baselessly claimed their child will be hurt and THEN claim you care about them?
I have not denigrated these people, only their life choices. I can tolerate a transgender woman living with a woman--I certainly don't accept it. But these two, plus a sperm donor, have brought a third person (or fourth, if you count the donor) into this lifestyle. It will have unforseen repercussions, whether or not you want to recognize them.
You are sick, ignorant, and without decency.
You don't even know me. Even I haven't been that ugly with you.
I AM a Christian.
If you say so, but I doubt a very good one. Are you the type of Christian that believes that God accepts every bad thing that you do and just wants you to be happy? Regardless of what you do? If you read your Bible, you'd see that God is less tolerant of some of the behaviors that you accept---you might even call him "bigoted". I'm not saying that God lacks mercy or anything like that, only that there are sinful things in this world that God clearly disproves of, and the fact that some people accept them as a lifestyle choice doesn't make them correct in God's eyes. But we could go on and on over this.
You can tell a tree by its fruit and yours is poisened by hatred and bone ignorance.
I'm not perfect, but hatred and ignorance? Pull the plank from your eye my friend.
You need to get over yourself Salon. I know you're "enlightened" and all that, but, you don't know everything.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.
Gilbert K. Chesterton
From St. Thomas Aquanis:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3066.htm
Do not take his words out of context to support your socialist views.
Article 7. Whether it is lawful to steal through stress of need?
Objection 1. It would seem unlawful to steal through stress of need. For penance is not imposed except on one who has sinned. Now it is stated (Extra, De furtis, Cap. Si quis): "If anyone, through stress of hunger or nakedness, steal food, clothing or beast, he shall do penance for three weeks." Therefore it is not lawful to steal through stress of need.
Objection 2. Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 6) that "there are some actions whose very name implies wickedness," and among these he reckons theft. Now that which is wicked in itself may not be done for a good end. Therefore a man cannot lawfully steal in order to remedy a need.
Objection 3. Further, a man should love his neighbor as himself. Now, according to Augustine (Contra Mendac. vii), it is unlawful to steal in order to succor one's neighbor by giving him an alms. Therefore neither is it lawful to steal in order to remedy one's own needs.
On the contrary, In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another's property, for need has made it common.
I answer that, Things which are of human right cannot derogate from natural right or Divine right. Now according to the natural order established by Divine Providence, inferior things are ordained for the purpose of succoring man's needs by their means. Wherefore the division and appropriation of things which are based on human law, do not preclude the fact that man's needs have to be remedied by means of these very things. Hence whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law, to the purpose of succoring the poor. For this reason Ambrose [Loc. cit., 2, Objection 3 says, and his words are embodied in the Decretals (Dist. xlvii, can. Sicut ii): "It is the hungry man's bread that you withhold, the naked man's cloak that you store away, the money that you bury in the earth is the price of the poor man's ransom and freedom."
Since, however, there are many who are in need, while it is impossible for all to be succored by means of the same thing, each one is entrusted with the stewardship of his own things, so that out of them he may come to the aid of those who are in need. Nevertheless, if the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another's property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery.
Reply to Objection 1. This decretal considers cases where there is no urgent need.
Reply to Objection 2. It is not theft, properly speaking, to take secretly and use another's property in a case of extreme need: because that which he takes for the support of his life becomes his own property by reason of that need.
Reply to Objection 3. In a case of a like need a man may also take secretly another's property in order to succor his neighbor in need.But in this situation you have a biological female who feels she is really a male and has taken steps to become a male, but is now pregnant. Now, one could say - if she truly felt that she was a male, wouldn't the concept of carrying and delivering a child be "out of the equation"?. In honesty it's quite confusing to me and I really can't grasp how I feel. I'm confounded by it.
I almost feel like it's cheating. If you want to be a man then be a man - but don't say I'm a man and I'm also going to use my remaining female organs to have a baby. It just seems to me that someone who is truly transgendered (F to M) would not entertain the concept of getting pregnant since males can't get pregnant. I can't say I condemn or condone this, I just am confused by it.
This person will NEVER be a male, no matter how much she tries! You are what nature made you---anything less is just lies and physical mutilation.
Think about it like this---people who get plastic surgery, like Priscilla Presley and Joan Rivers, do so because it will make them look young. Would anyone consider them young at 62 and 74? You can slap on a new coat of paint on a rusty shack, and you still have a rusty shack.
So, how is this whatever it is really a man?
Plastic surgery has nothing to do with it - Priscilla Presley and Joan Rivers probably just think they are enhancing their looks and not really changing who they are. That's a different issue all together having to do with self esteem and other factors.
This is a different situation altogether. A person likes this is not trying to enhance their looks, they are attempting to become the person they feel they are inside. They probaby felt that way from birth and attempted to reconcile it until they made the decision to become who they felt they were inherently.
It is a part of nature. If it's not, how can you explain some animals that have been documented as showing homosexual tendencies? I don't care who or what they are - I'll treat everyone with dignity and respect until they show me I should do otherwise. That's what the media needs to do also, and stop imposing their values and their beliefs on the public. How is the media has become such experts on everything?
Your right about plastic surgery--I was making a point. Just because you get some work done doesnt change who and what you are.
You say homosexuality is natural---this is partially true. For some people, there is a generic defect that makes them this way. Others claim homosexuality because they train themselves to be that way. I believe most gays fall somewhere in the middle. This is beside the point.
It is not natural for a person to mutilate their bodies so they can live as the opposite sex. Nor is it natural for a woman, who is living partially physically as a man to be pregnant. The media has touted this out like a freak of nature.
You talk about treating this "family" with respect and dignity. Fair enough. But what about the child? Is his/her "family" treating him/her with respect and dignity by raising him/her in that environment?
I didn't say I agreed with it. I just don't think the entire process was well thought out including the repecussions to children. These are considerations that should have been made during the time he was transitioning from female to male - we all probably do things differently in retrospect. That doesn't mean I won't respect them for decisions that I would have made differently.
I think you have genetic homosexuality and I think you have situational homosexuality (people in prision, Ann Heicht, etc.). It is the situational group with whom I have a hard time emp is the situational group and I have a hard time agreeing - BUT I will continue to respect them until their beliefs infringe on mine.
I propose that this particular child will be much better off than thousands who are born to "normal" parents every day. The biggest problem this child will face is going to be the unreasoning, relentless BIGOTRY from Troglodytes like you.
"Is it respectful to raise a child in an environment of Religious zealotry and ignorant bigotry, teaching him that he's born evil, that he may spend eternity in torture if he thinks or says the wrong thing? Is that really any better? Why? "
It's better because it's true, but I know that's not good enough for you.
If nothing else, it encourages people to live good lives. I know this is a difficult concept for you, being a "progressive".
I hope and pray that this child has a normal life. But I fear that he/she will be totally confused. It will deal with schoolyard crap as a child, and sexual confusion as an adolescent. This child will certainly wonder about it's real father. Worst case scenario, these "parents" will encourage the child to engage in deviant behavior to the point where the child ends up killing itself, either accidentally or intentionally, God forbid.
In the meantime, bleeding-heart liberals like yourself will sit back and act all proud because you helped to encourage this behavior.
Sez you. Your saying it doesn't make it so. Just as your saying that the child in question will be "confused" is just another one of your gratuitous assertions.
You are right about one thing, though. The child will likely face bigotry and cruelty from all those little kids who are being raised by "normal" Christian parents.
Gee, I wonder where those kids will learn that hatred.....?
Meanwhile ignorant bigots like YOU will act all proud because you have found another reason to hate someone. Grow up.
I'm ready for a bogus report of radical feminists implanting fertilized fetuses into innocent male CEO's. They will threaten to make all male pigs pregnant and other sexualradical nonsense.
Upon hearing this Joe will lock himself in his bedroom and will refuse to ever come out again.
And the world cheers!!