GC: How would you react if you saw a trans woman in the women's restroom?

submitted by GenderbenderShe/her/hers from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

In males, female appearing breasts may indicate the following;

Hypogonadism. Conditions that lower testosterone production, such as Klinefelter syndrome or pituitary insufficiency, can be associated with gynecomastia. Aging. Hormone changes that occur with aging can cause gynecomastia, especially in men who are overweight. Tumors. Some tumors, such as those involving the testes, adrenal glands or pituitary gland, can produce hormones that alter the male-female hormone balance. Hyperthyroidism. In this condition, the thyroid gland produces too much of the hormone thyroxine. Kidney failure. About half the people being treated with dialysis experience gynecomastia due to hormonal changes. Liver failure and cirrhosis. Changes in hormone levels related to liver problems and cirrhosis medications are associated with gynecomastia. Malnutrition and starvation. When your body is deprived of adequate nutrition, testosterone levels drop while estrogen levels remain the same, causing a hormonal imbalance. Gynecomastia can also happen when normal nutrition resumes.

In females breast development indicates healthy development and hormonal balance.

This article explains some differences,

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5010345/ Such as the distinct lack of lobules. There is no evidence that estrogen causes the formation of lobules. There are mountains of evidence that the growth of breast tissue in males with excess estrogen is gynecomastia.

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This article explains some differences,

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5010345/ Such as the distinct lack of lobules. There is no evidence that estrogen causes the formation of lobules. There are mountains of evidence that the growth of breast tissue in males with excess estrogen is gynecomastia.

Generally, males do not have lobules. But some males with breast cancer have been found to have partially developed lobules. It's very rare, but it has happened.

One theory is that genetic factors cause the male androgen receptors in the breast tissue of some males to "express" in ways similar to estrogen receptors. Another theory is that during male mini puberty of infancy some male babies either make amounts of estrogen and progesterone that are higher than typical, or they respond to the normal amounts of E and P they make in atypical ways. Yet another theory is that for a time in infancy some males have excess aromatization that causes them to convert some of the massive amounts of T that baby boys produce during male mini puberty of infancy into estrogen. But no one knows.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

I had an x-ray and a breast exam and my doctor told me very clearly that it was lobular growth. I can literally feel where. Obviously if you only look up info on gyno you will not get information about trans women, men with excess estrogen do not take the same doses that we do nor t blockers or progesterone, so it's simply not the same.

See this

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5773616/

The histologic effect of high levels of estrogen utilized for transition from male to female, unlike gynecomastia, includes development of ducts, lobules and acini histologically identical to cisgender women. Pseudolactational changes have also been described

The same breast pathology that occurs in natal women should be expected in transgender women.

Also: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8056255/

As hormone-induced breast development in trans women results in a histological female breast with ducts and lobules, lobular pathology in trans women may be expected

Tl;Dr it's not gyno and pretending it is will harm us because we need more breast screenings than men with gyno

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

So what makes the breasts tissue of a man with “woman gender identity” different to a man who doesn’t?

Why would excess estrogen cause lobular growth in men with gender identity and regular gyno in men without it?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

identity doesn't make breast tissue different, hormones do...men with gyno have a different hormonal situation than trans women, it's not just estrogen it's also the amount of it and type and T level etc. As the study explains, breast development caused by exogenous estrogen for transitioning mtf is distinct from gyno.

Lobular growth seems to be hit or miss. I know other trans women who have not had that much development. Others with more than me. It's frustrating that we don't know more

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why would excess estrogen cause lobular growth in men with gender identity and regular gyno in men without it?

Good question. Maybe it's the head tilt, the pronouns insisted upon, or way the way the breast tissue bounces when going up and down stairs. TW frequently say on social media that the bouncing of their breast tissue makes them ecstatic with gender euphoria, but bog standard guys with gynecomastia are far less thrilled by all the jiggling their own breast tissue does.

Then again, the explanation could also be that the claims being made here are simply not true.

Since male breast tissue is rudimentary, it usually does not differentiate and undergo lobule formation unless exposed to increased concentrations of endogenous or exogenous estrogen.

  • The Differences between Male and Female Breast Cancer, 2010

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Both the papers you linked to are about the kinds of pathologies that HCPs need to be aware of and look out for when doing imaging of breast tissue of TW who take exogenous estrogen. The fact that some TW who've had breast imaging show "development of ducts, lobules and acini" that on film or on screen appear "histologically identical" to some women doesn't mean they are capable of performing the same function, which is to make milk.

Pseudolactational changes have also been described

Just because the authors of this paper say "pseudolactational changes" in the breast tissue of TW have been "described" by some doctors doesn't mean this breast tissue is lactational tissue. It doesn't mean this tissue has lactated or can lactate. It means the total opposite, in fact. The clue is in the "pseud" part of "pseudolactational." Pseudo means "not genuine; spurious or sham."

Also, the first paper you cite itself says that the development of the specific kinds of tissue in the breasts that has been observed in some TW through imaging, and which you are so focused on, is the kind of development that occurs in females early in puberty, but only early in puberty. The tissue observed in TW has not reached the level of development seen in females who are in the final phase of puberty known as Tanner Stage 5.

Plus, not all breast experts would agree that the sort of tissue development that the HCPs who do breast imaging and who wrote the first paper say they have observed in some TW on exogenous hormone formulations have never been found in bog-standard males who don't take the same sorts of drugs:

Male breast pathology has a similar diversity as is seen in women. Although lobular carcinomas were not thought to occur in men because of the normally absent terminal lobular unit, several reports have identified both in situ and invasive lobular carcinoma.16,100,101 Virtually every histologic entity described in women has occurred in men.

  • "Gynecomastia" in The Breast, 2-Volume Set, Expert Consult Online and Print (Fourth Edition), 2009

Since male breast tissue is rudimentary, it usually does not differentiate and undergo lobule formation unless exposed to increased concentrations of endogenous or exogenous estrogen.

Because of the [usual] lack of lobules in the male breast, lobular carcinoma [in males who don't identify as trans and don't take exogenous estrogens] is very uncommon (1%), but has been reported in the literature.

  • The Differences between Male and Female Breast Cancer, 2010

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/male-breast

Another issue is that imaging technology only goes so far and is limited in what it reveals. For example, when I had a concerning mass in one of my breasts, and a tumor in my head, the doctors who treated me guessed what the growths were made of - but they couldn't be sure until they actually took a biopsy of my breast mass, and removed the tumor from head, then sent the tissue to a pathology lab for thorough examination. In the case of both my breast mass and my cranial tumor, the doctors' guesses based on what they saw in the imaging turned out to be wrong. (ETA: these events in my medical history were separate, and did not occur at the same time. The times when I had a tumor in my head that had to be removed surgically and I had a breast mass requiring biopsy were years apart.)

The point is: even though males and females can and do develop breast tissues and pathology that can appear identical when viewed through imaging technology, there are still many differences at the cellular level. For example, the vast majority of the hormone receptors in male breast tissue will be male androgen receptors whilst the majority of the hormone receptors in female breast tissue will be female estrogen receptors and progesterone receptors. Yes, males have estrogen and receptors in their breast tissue too, as they do in other parts of their bodies. Moreover, in males who develop certain breast cancers, many of the male androgen receptors that are predominant in number will "express" in ways that cause them to behave a lot like female estrogen receptors. Yet at the same time, the male receptors that behave somewhat like female receptors will play a different role in male and female breast cancer even when the cancer is of the same type.

Scientific understanding of male and female hormone receptors is still in early stages. But what is clear from human and animal research is that whilst both sexes have androgen receptors, estrogen receptors and progesterone receptors (as well as receptors for other hormones), the ARs, ERs and PRs of males and females are different in nature, location, number, expression and function - and when hormone receptors are affected by genetic mutations, the impact of the same exact mutation on the affected receptors will be different depending on the person's sex.

Finally, the focus on breast development - on what a TW's breast tissue might look like to a casual observer on the street or what it might look like in medical imaging - is beside the point. Although human breasts serve a reproductive purpose that is extremely important, human breasts are still secondary sex characteristics. Lots of women have all sorts of breast anomalies. Lots of women have issues with their breast anatomy that makes it difficult or impossible for them to breastfeed. Lots of women have had one or both breasts removed due to breast cancer. But none of that has any affect on our sex. Many males including a majority of TW tend to see breasts as defining characteristics of women - in fact, many see breasts as women's single most important and most defining characteristic. But women don't see ourselves and each other that way.

The difference between how TW and women regard women's breasts has been illustrated on a number of Mumsnet threads where TW have expressed their belief that women size up and rate one another according to breast size, and that we see women with large breasts as being more genuinely female than women with small or absent breasts. The women of Mumsnet were aghast at this preposterous view.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

The fact that some TW who've had breast imaging show "development of ducts, lobules and acini" that on film or on screen appear "histologically identical" to some women doesn't mean they are capable of performing the same function, which is to make milk.

there are literally forums where trans women have figured out how to do so. There have been trans women who have breastfed.

The tissue observed in TW has not reached the level of development seen in females who are in the final phase of puberty known as Tanner Stage 5.

It has in some of us, in me for example. My doctor has told me so.

Since male breast tissue is rudimentary

They should stop defining it as male breast tissue then if it no longer presents as such because of exogenous exposure.

but they couldn't be sure until they actually took a biopsy of my breast mass

Do I need to literally have this done for you to believe me? My breasts are not gyno, it is incredibly apparent from those studies, from what my doctor has told me based on examinations, from appearance and form--theyre literally attached to my body so I know what my own breasts feel like thanks very much.

there are still many differences at the cellular level.

Who the heck cares? The tissue level is identical, what's important is that my receptors behave in a way that lets my breasts be breasts, and they do.

the ARs, ERs and PRs of males and females are different in nature

Then maybe the future for trans care is taking a medication to wipe out natural receptors and another to introduce the right ones artificially.

I don't believe silly things like that women rate each other based on size. I just won't sit here and be lectured about my anatomy when I know that I do not have gyno. It's not the only secondary sex characteristic I have and I'm determined to change as much as I can.

[–]BiologyIsReal 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

there are still many differences at the cellular level.

Who the heck cares? The tissue level is identical, what's important is that my receptors behave in a way that lets my breasts be breasts, and they do.

Well, tissues are made up of cells and if there are differences at the cellular level...

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Histologically identical means identical at the tissue level. Saying there are cellular differences as some sort of gotcha is just really hurtful, it's not my fault I can't get change my DNA. If you define it based on that instead of its actual function, tissue and structure, you've missed the entire point which is that many secondary sex characteristics of our bodies are mutable and that there is nothing stopping someone from phenotypically changing sex.

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I know what hitologically means, thank you. I was questioning your claim of not being histological differences because tissues are made up of cells. If there are differences at the cellular levels, those differences will manifest in the structure and function of tissues. And sex is not defined by secondary sex characteristics.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Then why do studies state histologically identical? Different cells could present the same tissue.

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Then why do studies state histologically identical? Different cells could present the same tissue.

Studies are specific. The studies you cited were about what HCPs and scientists see when they use medical imaging to look at body parts. In the case of the papers you linked to, the imaging was of human breast tissue.

There are many, many studies done using microscopes to look at cells. There's vast numbers of studies and research papers on the ways cells behave. For example, the papers you cited were written to tell HCPs what tissue anomalies to look out for when reading breast scans. Whereas if you looked up breast cancer, you'd find a lot of papers about the behaviors of the cells in breast cancer.

If you search "human breast cancer" and "human breast cancer cells" you'll come up with different results. However, many research papers will deal with both tissues and cells because tissues are made of cells, and in cancer there is a problem with cellular growth and replication. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4929267/

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

there are literally forums where trans women have figured out how to do so. There have been trans women who have breastfed.

No, some TW have taken drug regimens to cause them to develop some kind of nipple discharge while their wives were pregnant. A couple of these TW say they pumped the nipple discharge out, stored it, and later put it into bottles and forced the bottles into the mouths of hungry newborn babies who being babies with no other choice, ended up sucking the nipple discharge down. Some TW have said they put their newborn babies to their nipples and for a few moments their helpless newborn babies sucked on their nipples and in the process presumably ingested some of whatever the discharge coming out of the nipples was.

One TW who was written up in a medical case report claimed to have fed a newborn from the TW's breasts exclusively for 6 weeks - and that the baby thrived, and the baby's pediatrician heartily approved. But the doctors who wrote up the case report were gender clinic doctors with no medical expertise in obstetrics, postpartum maternity, neonatal care or lactation - and apparently no personal life experience with, or even a clue about, the care and tending of babies, either. The doctors who wrote up the case report never saw TW's baby, spoke to the baby's mother, or checked with the baby's pediatrician. For all they knew, there might not have been any baby or pregnant wife at all.

But a key fact about all these stories of supposed medical miracles is that NO scientific analysis was done of the fluid that came out of the nipples of the TW in any of the cases. Therefore, there is no evidence at all of what exactly was in the nipple discharge. The nipple discharge could have been simply pus. Most definitely it was full of the heavy-duty drugs the TW had been ingesting to stimulate nipple discharge - one of which is a drug explicitly barred in the USA for use by breastfeeding women because of the negative impacts on the health of the children. Negative impacts which the FDA says can include heart failure and death.

But whatever was oozing out of the nipples of the TW in those real or apocryphal cases, I would bet my house that it was neither colostrum nor breastmilk.

If there were any chance the nipple discharge of these TW were breastmilk or colostrum, then surely the TW and their doctors would have arranged for lab analysis to prove once and for all that it was. After all, lab analysis is not difficult or costly to do. It's done all the time nowadays.

For many years, milk banks have been testing donor milk for pathogens and to ascertain it contains the customary and necessary nutrients https://milkbank.org/faq/

A number of commercial labs now also provide of at-home kits that make getting an analysis of breastmilk easy as pie.

https://lactationlab.com/collections/breast-milk-test-kits/products/basic-test-kit

https://www.mymilklab.com/mmes/nutrition

Given how easy it is to do a thorough analysis of breast milk and all other kinds of nipple discharge, don't you find it curious that no one bothered to do it in these cases? After all, proving that what issued from the breasts of TW in these cases was colostrum and breastmilk identical to what women make - and proving that it was totally sufficient to meet the nutritional and immunity needs of newborns - would be a huge win for the QT and TRA side. It would also give TW the kind of gender validation and affirmation that the T community seeks, holds so dear and is always demanding that others provide (or else). So it seems rather telling that no one bothered to do any lab analysis. Since TP and their doctors put so much faith in the wonders of modern medical science, it's odd that taking a sample to a lab never occurred to a single person involved in any of these tales.

Also, just for the record, many people believe that the TW who claim they have breastfed their newborns actually were engaging in clearcut abuse of the babies involved. None of the TW who have engaged in this activity and have written about it or spoken to the press about it, or have been written up as medical case reports, said they were motivated by wanting to do what's best for the child. On the contrary, all said they did it for personal gratification, "the experience" and "validation" and "affirmation" of their gender identities and their "femininity." Moreover, one TW who wrote about the experience for The Stranger bragged very openly that "she" found it very sexual arousing - the biggest turn-on of "her" life, in fact - and encouraged other TW to do it for the sexual thrills. As a result, many women feel this novel form of newborn "child care" that TW have invented constitutes not just child abuse, but child sex abuse too.

In response to me saying,

there are still many differences at the cellular level

Your response is

Who the heck cares? The tissue level is identical

Really? How can the tissue be identical when tissue is made up of cells?

what's important is that my receptors behave in a way that lets my breasts be breasts, and they do.

Okay, then. But can you share exactly what you mean when you say your receptors let your "breasts be breasts"?

BTW, perhaps it's my twisted mind, but the phrase "let breasts be breasts" immediately reminded me of the oft-heard expression, "boys will be boys."

Anyways, no one GC would dispute that males have breasts. Lots of men have sizable breasts - just go visit any beach and you'll see. We just say there are functional differences between male and female breasts. Just as there are functional differences between the breasts of a woman who has never had a baby and a woman who has, and there are especially marked differences between the breasts of a woman who has recently given birth and one who has not.

In fact, there are marked differences in women's breasts over the course of our lives, and depending on our childbearing status. My own breasts are very different now than they were at 18 and 35. When I was pregnant and breastfeeding, my breasts were different to how they were before then and the way they've been since I weaned. Now that I'm past menopause age, my breasts aren't what they once were looks-wise, either. I have a hunch that when it comes to meeting male standards of what breasts should look like to be considered sexually attractive and "hot and sexy" by men and boys, your breasts probably fit the bill far, far better than mine.

GC women also say that when male human beings take hormone formulations that result in them developing visible breasts that the whole world can see with the naked eye, and which might look similar or identical to the breast tissue of some women when viewed in medical imaging, it still doesn't make them women.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No, some TW have taken drug regimens to cause them to develop some kind of nipple discharge

It's called milk you know.

No scientific analysis was done of the fluid that came out

I'll be sure to try and analyze it when I start making my own cheese. I'll send it off to that site you linked.

It could have been pus

Y'all literally believe we're disgusting abominations huh? Why would it be that when we have all of the structures in place to lactate? Heck, you know that men have lactated before right? Without any of the hormonal interventions that would make it way easier for a trans woman to.

Also, just for the record, many people believe that the TW who claim they have breastfed their newborns actually were engaging in clearcut abuse of the babies involved

Yeah because when we do anything that's totally normal for a mother to do it's abuse just because we're trans I forgot about that detail x(

said they were motivated by wanting to do what's best for the child

I would be, that's my motivation. I would want to be a good mom and if I'm biologically capable of it then I want to know in advance.

How can the tissue be identical when tissue is made up of cells?

A carpet can be synthetic or natural fibers but it's still a carpet lol

We just say there are functional differences between male and female breasts

Well mine function like female breasts

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's called milk you know.

Y'all literally believe we're disgusting abominations huh?

No it's not milk. Not everything that comes out of a nipple is milk. Both males and females can have all sorts of discharge from the nipples that need evaluation by a HCP.

Nipple discharge is the commonly-used medical term. There's nothing disgusting about it - that's your word choice, not mine. People of both sexes who have nipple discharge are human beings in need of medical evaluation. You're the one equating having nipple discharge with being "disgusting abominations," not me.

Nipple discharge refers to any fluid that seeps out of the nipple of the breast.

Nipple discharge during pregnancy and breast-feeding is normal. Nipple discharge happens less commonly in women who aren't pregnant or breast-feeding. It may not be cause for concern, but it's wise to have it evaluated by a doctor to be sure.

Men who experience nipple discharge under any circumstances should be evaluated.

One or both breasts may produce a nipple discharge, either spontaneously or when you squeeze your nipples or breasts. Nipple discharge may look milky, clear, yellow, green, brown or bloody.

Discharge that isn't milk comes out of your nipple through the same ducts that carry milk. The discharge can involve a single duct or multiple ducts. The consistency of nipple discharge can vary — it may be thick and sticky or thin and watery.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/symptoms/nipple-discharge/basics/definition/sym-20050946

In males especially, nipple discharge needs to be investigated urgently. Because it's often a sign of cancer.

Fluid leaking from one or both nipples is called nipple discharge. Discharge from a man's breast is not normal and should always be checked by a doctor.

Nipple discharge may be a symptom of an infection, a side effect of a medicine, or maybe a symptom of breast cancer.

Nipple discharge occurs when fluid leaks out of your nipple. Sometimes it just happens, and sometimes it happens only when you squeeze your nipple. It can happen in both of your nipples or only one. The color and consistency of the discharge depends on what’s causing it. Nipple discharge in a man should always be evaluated by a doctor.

When he is born, a man’s breasts contain the same tissue and milk ducts as a woman’s, but because they are exposed to male hormones instead of female hormones during puberty, they become mostly fat instead of growing bigger. Some of the tissue and milk ducts are left though, so many of the causes of nipple discharge are the same in men and women.

Nipple discharge doesn’t happen very often in men. When it does happen, it’s very important that you see your doctor because it may be a sign that you have breast cancer.

https://www.healthline.com/health/nipple-discharge-in-males

Fluid leaking from one or both nipples is called nipple discharge. Discharge from a man's breast is not normal and should always be checked by a doctor. Nipple discharge may be a symptom of an infection, a side effect of a medicine, or maybe a symptom of breast cancer.

Treatment depends on what is causing the nipple discharge. You may need more tests to find out the cause.

https://www.healthline.com/health/nipple-discharge-in-males

Lots of women have had discharge coming from our nipples that we've had to have checked out by a doctor. This happens even to breastfeeding mothers. Because when women breastfeed for any length of time, it's common to get cracked nipples that bacteria can enter and to develop at least one breast infection as a result.

Heck, you know that men have lactated before right? Without any of the hormonal interventions that would make it way easier for a trans woman to.

No, I don't know that men have lactated before, LOL. I do know, however, that in the 19th and 20th centuries, some white Western travel writers and students of anthropology told some anecdotes about "exotic" peoples in far away lands were some men provided comfort for their babies by holding them to their bare chests and the babies sucked on their nipples. And the tellers of these tales decided to describe the men in these few stories as lactating and breastfeeding. But that doesn't mean the men actually were lactating.

Babies are endowed with a strong urge to suck - and as a result, they suck on lots of things: fingers, clothing, pacifiers, bibs, long hanks of hair, the corner of a washcloth or towel - their own hands and fingers, and even their own toes. Given the chance, babies will suck on their father's nipples when snuggled up against their naked chests. My kids did that with their father. It doesn't mean the men in these cases are lactating and nursing. Just as when a baby sucks on a pacifier, it doesn't mean the pacifier is issuing milk and providing nutrition and immunity.

BTW, if men could lactate and breastfeed, I'd be all for it. The father of my children would have loved to have breastfed - and like many women, I happily would have let him share the job of breastfeeding, or take it over entirely.

because when we do anything that's totally normal for a mother to do it's abuse just because we're trans I forgot about that detail x(

It's not normal for a mother to write articles or go on social media bragging that the first time we held our newborns in our arms and put them to our breasts, we experienced the greatest sexual arousal of our lives. I've heard and read lots of women discuss their experiences giving birth and putting baby to breast - and I have never, ever heard or read any say it gave them the female equivalent of a raging boner. I have only heard and read this sort of thing from TW.

At any rate, please stop being so cavalier about the breastfeeding of human newborns. The survival, health and emotional wellbeing of innocent infants is at issue here. You're really not doing your side any favors by showing that you couldn't care less about the newborns whose health and wellbeing are being put at risk by the TW you extoll - all for the purpose of providing selfish TW with validation and affirmation of their gender identities, and sexual thrills after their female partners have gone through the arduous, draining and often terrifying process of human labor and childbirth.