I expect his son will be reeling too once he is old enough to understand how he was fed as a baby.
Trevor, the transgender breast-feeding enthusiast has a blog called – what else – Milk Junkies to encourage other men with breast envy, ex-women with artificially withered breasts, ex-men with yet to be implanted breasts – and, in fact, just about anybody afflicted by an inability to lactate unaided by tubes, not to give up.
Gender equality demands that you too should breast feed: you are entitled to it.
From here:
Transgender father Trevor MacDonald, who breastfeeds his son with the help of a supplemental feeding tube, is reeling after a rejection from the motherhood support group that helped him overcome his challenges.
La Leche League Canada (LLLC) told the Winnipeg man that he cannot become a group leader because he identifies as a father, quelling his ambitions to guide other transgender members and mothers who do not produce enough milk.
This man/woman is totally messed up.
Let me get this straight… he’s a man in a woman’s body who wants to be a man so badly that he has breast reduction surgery (and all sorts of other treatment no doubt) only to want to “mother” a child. What a mucked up person.
I’m really sorry for the kid.
And his partner? How’s that vaginal intercourse with another man going for ya?
This tranny stuff is just weird.
Eph
Where’s your compassion? Wasn’t he “born that way”? Isn’t he just living out the role that God gave him? Aren’t we called to love and support all God’s children?
You should be ashamed of yourself.
And let’s not forget a generous pastoral response.
Hi, I’m Trevor’s partner, and I thought I’d share with you that I was raised Anglican and do read the blogs. I never heard such hatred in my home church as I hear on your board … why is that? Trevor’s an amazingly dedicated partner whom I married two years ago and having our child has been the most amazing blessing in my life. Trevor is a devoted parent and is joyous in sharing his knowledge with others and that is why he wants to volunteer for La Leche League. Along with David and Jim, I would like to invite others here, to listen to understand, then speak from compassion, to our family. Thanks, Yours in Christ, Ian
Thank you for explaining that: I knew there had to be a rational explanation for your predicament.
Riddle me this.
Let me get this straight (pun)
He/she was a woman who was supposed to be a man.
He/she intentionally removed his/her ability to nurse.
Now she is a he he/she wants to feed his/her child, but now only through a tube.
I can only imagine this happening coming soon in a mall close to you.
I think that’s about right.
A self-parody that is a cruel joke upon those of us who find our best efforts out-parodied by reality.
I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout. — Jonathan Swift, A Modest Proposal
After letting out an agonizing and high pitched prolonged and simpering moan of disbelief, and rolling my eyes back in their sockets until they hurt, (until I was looking at the top of my skull), I immediately incurred a severe headache trying to figure out what in the name of samhill this artificially induced mutation of humanity really wants.
It was then I had a chilling and creeped-out glimpse of this baby’s adolescence, when he finds out Daddy/Mommy,(Damommy?), not only breast fed him, but made a publicly recorded spectacle of it for all his friends to view and discuss in the locker room.
If you think this fellow/gal or gal/fellow, or whatever description is to be given for this poor transmutated soul, is messed up, how messed up will a generation raised not by a good old Mom and Dad,( with all their glorious foibles), but by a Mommy and a Mommy, or a Daddy and a Daddy, or a He/She and a She/He?
I’m so confused.
Ian,
I have to confess that I was being sarcastic with Eph in my post. Eph has railed against some on the blog for not being sensitive to those who have alternate sexualities and yet, in this case, he was exhibiting the very intolerance he condemned others of.
I am glad that you and Trevor find comfort in each other and I pray the child will grow in God’s ways.
Disagreeing with the way someone lives his or her life does not automatically mean that I ‘hate’ him. Hate is a much overused word in this society.
If someone calls your partner a “mutation of humanity”, you might find that hateful.
Everything that is not in agreement with you is hateful. Boy you must have been great in a debating society.
Tu quoque! Master of the ad hominem!
I think you have misunderstood the meaning of “argumentum ad hominem”. It means:
“Ad hominem” is frequently misunderstood to mean “rudeness” – something which you seem to feel has been on display in some of these comments.
In actual fact, when you don’t address a point because you think the person is being “hateful” (whether he is or not is beside the point), you are indulging in argumentum ad hominem.
Completely irrelevant to my point.
‘Mutilation’ of humanity would be more accurate. I liken this to one of those unfortunate people so alienated from her own body she has one or both of her feet amputated, but then decides to run in a foot race. And when sane people don’t subsequently applaud her efforts and refuse to enable her obvious self-loathing, complains how “hate-filled” they are.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/22/health/psychology/22ampu.html
Jim,
I draw the line at homosexuality. Hey, you guys have your line in the sand and I have mine.
There is no inconsistency in my message if I steadfastly am resolved to support those who were born hetrosexual and those born homosexual. I don’t buy into the transgendered, bisexual stuff – that’s my limit.
Let’s not forget that we now live in a world where it is “all about me”. The only thing that matters is what “I want”. So this Trevor person is just another living example of this. Trevor wants to be a man. Trevor wants to breast feed. Trevor wants everyone else to say that Trevor can have whatever Trevor wants. Trevor does not seem to care about what he is doing to the lives of others, including little children. Trevor does not seem to care that “his” presence at a a breast feeding support group could be a source of embarrasment for the women who attend. After all, the only thing that matters in Trevor’s life is what Trevor wants.
Eph
If that is your prayerful position, you’re in the wrong church. The ACoC has turned its theology into a pretzel to accept gay marriage before God: they have turned a sin into a blessing.
Most of the old hands on the blog have been down a long road of disappointment with the ACoC. What outsiders are characterizing as hate, I believe, is an expression of sad resolve.
I’m still confused.
Thanks to Jim and others who bring openhearted consideration to our family. Trevor is “gender dysphoric” which means he does not fit into traditional gender categories. He is treated medically for this condition. While identifying as male, he was able to have a child and feed him.
I see it this way. When Jesus preached, he was reviled because of his social status. “Isn’t that Mary’s son?” (Mark 6:3), meaning, “Isn’t that the fatherless bastard?” Trevor is volunteering to help others who have difficulty feeding their children. Yet here’s tremendous disdain for him based on his condition.
I see a similarity. How do you see Jesus and His teachings applying here?
Wow, read between the lines. Bastard? The Son of Man? Really?
I cannot speak for Jesus (although you want to) but I suspect that Trevor would have had his demon cast out.
Perhaps we need to evolve a modular approach to the human body with interchangable parts, snap on breasts, removable penis, be all that you can be!
Calling someone “Mary’s son” (ie. father was not known) was a high insult in the day; that’s why the crowd took offense. Discerning Jesus’s message is not to speak for Jesus — how do you discern right now?
Would you care to supply a reference for that reading?
The parallel passage in Matt 13:15 ff includes “Is not this the carpenter’s son?” which tends to refute your interpretation.
The ESV study notes come closest – but still not very close:
The New Bible Commentary makes no mention of your interpretation nor does Matthew Henry, the NIV study notes, Unger’s Bible Handbook or the Tyndale Bible commentary.
Once again we see a total and deliberate missinterpretation of the Holy Scriptures. What Ian has posted here is nothing short of a heretical attempt to twist the Words of our Lord into something which Ian likes. But if he had bothered to read the very next verse he would have seen:
:But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.”
When we read verse 4 it is obvious that verse 3 has absolutely nothing to do with the false allegation of Jesus being born a bastard. In fact other passages tell us quite clearly that Jesoph and Mary were married at the time of Jesus’ birth, which makes Him legitimate (and most certainly not a bastard).
I defer to the ESV interpretation as to why the crowd took such offence at Jesus. As AMP points out, theirs is a heresy. Too bad they missed the point.
I notice you’ve left alone the question I asked you. I’m not asking to be confrontational or to academically debate. It’s an urgent and genuine question. How do you discern Jesus’s response, right now?
Bye, everyone.
I think Jesus’ response to Trevor would depend very much on what Trevor asked of Jesus: it is clear that Trevor is afflicted in some way, so I should think that Jesus could and would heal that affliction – if Trevor wanted to be healed.
If you are suggesting that Jesus would accept Trevor as he is, yes, I am sure he would; but that does not mean he would let him continue in the way he is going – any more than he does with any of us.
It seems apparent from what Trevor has done to himself that he is in a dreadful muddle; God loves us too much to allow us to remain in such a muddle.
Let me add: if Trevor is serious, I could probably put you and him in touch with a believing pastor who could counsel and pray with him. Email me via the Contact form.
It seems that Trevor is not happy to be a man and so still desires the bodily functions of a woman. The doctors who assisted his/her decision to change gender should have taken more care to be sure that was what Trevor really wanted as it seems now Trevor is neither here nor there.
Why do they have to go through such extremes to totally mess up a chld… Why not just boil the poor kid alive and get it over with.
There is a vast difference between a theological discussion and a discussion of real people’s life choices.
Because I am a conservative Christian, I believe that all of our discussions need to be informed with love. We are all sinners and we all have the promise of unqualified love in our savior. In return we are asked to love each other.
Perhaps in your world everyone’s a pony and they all eat rainbows and poop butterflies… but I still think this stuff is even too creepy for a Sunday school lesson.
Regarless of your “world” view, what a lovely way of presenting a Christian perspective.
I take it that loving one another is a step too far for you.
What he said.
Hey Sask. Lutheran Farmer, where ’bouts in Riderville are you located?
filed under ‘gender confusion’? Biased much?
Biased? This person was something, became something else, wants some of the first back. If that is not confusing what is?
Ian and Trevor. <3 That is all.