Talk:Male pregnancy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. This article has been tagged since January 2007.

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

Contents 1 Expansion suggestion 2 Untitled talk 3 In HUMANS? 4 E h? 5 Lee MingWei 6 OriginalResearch Template 7 Debate 8 RfC 9 No additional citations needed for female-to-male transsexuals 10 Harry Potter?? 11 "Generally considered possible"?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.107.45.11 (talk • contribs).

The place to go then is Wikipedia:Requests for comment (more specifically: [[1]]), 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)

[edit] 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 [2] [3], 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)