The first pregnant man was not a man, thus he is not the first pregnant man II

This seems to be an area where biology and law collide in interesting ways. I propose the following definitions to be used. If Pro disagrees with them I am perfectly willing to consider alternatives. Definitions (Oxford Dictionaries)Law – “The system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties”Male – “Of or denting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring”Female – “Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes”The facts of the caseThe person at the center of this debate is Thomas Beatie as stated in rule 2 of round 1. Thomas was born Tracy Lehuanai in Hawaii(1). As far as I can tell Tracy would have fit the definition of female at this time. Around the age of 10 years old Tracy began to “self-identify with the male gender” and “at 23 year old began testosterone hormone treatment to transition to living life as a man”(1). In 2002 he/she underwent a sex reassignment surgery or “top surgery” but did not undergo sterilization as it “was not a requirement to undergo a valid sex change anywhere in the United State(1)” Tracy then legally had his/her name changed to Thomas and “officially changed his name and sex marker from female to male on all of his state and federal documents, including his birth certificate, driver’s license, passport, and social security index(1). Thomas Beatie gave birth to three children from 2008 to 20102(2). The big questionSo was Thomas Beatie considered male of female when his/her children were born? This is where the rubber meets the road as they say. If we look at the definition of male and female it would seem that Thomas would fall under the female definition instead of the male. He/She could bear offspring and at the time had ova which were fertilized. As a society though, we life under a set of laws that we all operate under. Legally speaking, Thomas was a male at the time his children were born. So according to the rules that we live by Thomas as male at the time his children were born. Looking back at the definition of male we can see a small problem. It is very vague. The definition of male states that males “typically has motile gametes”. If we have an atypical situation, as we have in this case, the definition is not functional. Furthermore it would seem to indicate that a child born with our motile gametes typically would not be considered male. This is precisely why we use the law to distinguish such complicated issues that are not “black and white” decisions. So as per the the system of rules that we recognize and live under, Thomas Beatie was a male at the time his children were born. Rebuttal 1) Using you definition of “sex” we are looking for differences in biology, chromosomes, hormones, and sex organs. I think we can agree that Thomas’s biology and hormones are different from your typical female while Thomas’s chromosomes and sex organs would be similar to a typical female. In my opinion I am not qualified to render an informed opinion on this and will defer to our legal system. 2) Legaly speaking, Thomas underwent a “valid sex change(1)” which does not require sterilization. Also if we were to examine Thomas’s birth certificate or driver’s license it would have sex as male. During several court cases experts have been called to testify and in August of this year the “Arizona Appeals Court declared that the marriage of the Beaties was valid” ie. man and wife. This means that according to the rules we live by, it has been decided that Thomas is a male. (1) . http://en.wikipedia.org...