I'm not sure if you'll get this reply, since the site seems to say there are no comments anymore, but the instructions say I can just reply via e-mail.

The first problem with your statement is that "man" and "woman" are terms describing gender, not sex.  You're a "man" or a "woman" depending on how you identify yourself.  The terms "male" and "female" represent biological reproductive roles, and cannot be changed (yet!) once set.  But the terms are often used interchangeably, even though they are not interchangable.

My point is not to say that transsexual persons can change their chromosomes, because we can't.  Rather, my point is to say that trying to determine what is a "man" and what is a "woman" based on chromosomes is silly.  They aren't constants.  All men aren't XY.  All women aren't XX.  Most are what you'd expect, but not all of them, and while it's not something I'd say is common, it's not that rare either.  It's part of nature, just like all the other variations we have.  To take it further, even those who are XX or XY may or may not be able to reproduce and may or may not have genitalia expected of their assigned sex.  So ultimately, the identification is left to two things; how you identify yourself, and how others identify you.  The former is the most important, as there are plenty of cisgender males who identify as men, but are mistaken for women, just as there are plenty of cisgender females who identify as women but are mistaken for men.

Whether or not the various surgeries involved to treat the medical aspect of transsexuality is "mutilation" is a matter of personal opinion, but I fail to see how surgeries such as these are different than surgery for any other condition that is adversely affecting your life.  I don't expect you to understand what it's like to be transsexual, since I get the impression you aren't transsexual yourself.  You'd be surprised how many transsexual people you meet on a daily basis and never have any idea that they're transsexual.

I don't think stories such as this one are newsworthy, because there's nothing happening here aside from people being challeneged on their shortsighted beliefs.  I also am not particularly fond of the various transmen who seek to have children while making a spectacle of themselves, because I feel some of that does a disservice to those of us who do everything we can to distance ourselves from our incorrect gender assignment.  However, I'd chastize them for trying to get attention, not because of the choices they've made.  They're free to live their lives just as you're free to live yours.  Why all the animosity towards them?  Why are you so concerned about it?  Or is it just a case of perceived homophobia, where you're frightened that the person to whom you're attracted may not biologically be what you think they are, even though that biological definition is meaningless unless you're intent on reproducing with that person?

And for the record, he is a pregnant man.  He's just not, scientifically speaking, a pregnant male.

There is variation within the transgender and transsexual communities, with some
people not having surgery whatsoever, but still identifying with the gender
opposite the one assigned to them at birth. Your surgical status doesn't make
your identity any less valid, regardless of whether or not other people
understand it. Some people elect to not have surgery, or to only have some of
the surgery, for a variety of reasons (including their own feelings, health,
dissatisfaction with surgical results, etc.). Transmen often have "top"
surgery, but not "bottom" surgery, because the results tend to be unsatisfactory
for the risk involved.

Unless you're in an intimate
relationship with them, or they come out to you, you don't know what's in their
pants. You don't know what's in anyone's pants unless they either show you, or
tell you. Trying to base everything off what equipment one may or may not have
is just stupid. Not all the cisgender people even have the equipment they're
"supposed" to have! Does that make their identities invalid?

Now, with regard to transmen having babies. I don't understand it myself,
because I would never seek to do such a thing. However, I suppose the drive to
be a parent is stronger than the factors involved in the rest of their
situation, and that's the choice they make. I can easily accept it without
having to understand it.

Regarding intolerance, I didn't say that intolerance didn't exist, but that
doesn't make it any less ridiculous. Oh, and I love how you determined my
morals for me! Thanks! :) I never said anyone here didn't have a right to
their own opinion. I'm telling them their opinions are based on ignorance,
which is obvious considering the plethora of nonsense present in so many of
these posts.

Haha, that's pretty funny, actually. Transsexual people have existed in nature
for centuries, if not millennia. Trying to force everyone into two categories,
when nature obviously has not done so, doesn't make all the natural variations
disppear, nor does it make them any less natural. In essence, you're saying
it's not possible to do the very thing your statements attempt to do. Bravo!

Nowhere in this article does it say that he hated himself. He saw a problem and
sought to remedy it, just like any other person is able to do. If it bothers
you that much, perhaps it's a case of projecting your own feelings on to someone
else, then claiming that they're theirs.

The problem with your assertion is that "male" and "man" are not the same thing.
Society tends to link them together, but one is a scientific/biological concept
while the other is a construct created by society. Personally, as a transsexual
woman, I do not see why stories like this continue to be deemed "newsworthy".
However, the ignorance and intolerance that seems to fuel any discussion on the
topic never ceases to amaze me.

No, as long as testosterone is not being taken through the pregnancy, there
likely wouldn't be any problems.

There are men with XX chromosomes, and there are women with XY. There are all
manner of genetic variations, some resulting in infertile persons, while others
remain fertile. There are men with no male reproductive organs, and women
without female reproductive organs. Is a man suffering from testicular cancer
less of a man because he was castrated? Is a woman who has to have a
hysterectomy less of a woman because she's unable to bear children? If not,
then what's the difference? You can't prove that we're not who and what we say
we are, and more than you can prove that you are who and what you say YOU are.
Who cares?

I disagree. I think the sad, deluded individual who is sick and a freak is the
person who labels someone different than them as "demonically possessed", to the
point of condeming their unborn children as well. Why? Why so much hate and
vitriol? I pity the person who has to live their life with such intolerance and
hate.

Oh, please. We don't have to convince you that we're normal, nor are we
fraudulent. Your inability to understand and check your privilege at the door
is your problem, and it's something that's easily remedied with education.

Not all women have two X chromosomes. Some have 1, 2, 3, 4 or even 5. Not all
men have XY chromosomes, some have two X chromosomes or some other combination
of X and Y. Perhaps you should educate yourself before revealing your
ignorance by making blanket statements that are demonstrably false.