TMZ

Our TV Shows

Got a Tip?

Call TMZ at (888) 847-9869 or Click Here

Pregnant Man #2

The Baby Photos

4/11/2010 4:58 AM PDT BY TMZ STAFF

Scott Moore holds the unofficial title of "the second pregnant man" -- but no matter how you slice it, baby Miles is cute as a button.


TMZ has obtained photos of Miles -- born on March 9, 2010 -- with Scott and his husband Thomas (who, like Scott, was born a woman).

Confusing? Perhaps. Adorable? Absolutely.

135 COMMENTS

No Avatar

Previous 15 Comments | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
121.

stacia96    

Nice comment Alex. I agree, this doesn't mean the baby will be worse off. However, I have an issue with someone who identifies as a male, but then gives birth to a child. I guess he actually identifies with both sexes.

1622 days ago
122.

Amy    

AHHHHHHH!!!! These are not men. I wish you dumb asses would quit calling them that.

1622 days ago
123.

Demi    

Obviously, TMZ that you are pandering to the mixed-up culture that tolerates this kind of behavior. The truth has to be, "this poor child". What a truly mixed-up foundation he will grow-up in.

1622 days ago
124.

Demi    

Obviously, TMZ that you are pandering to the mixed-up culture that tolerates this kind of behavior. The truth has to be, "this poor child". What a truly mixed-up foundation he will grow-up in.

1622 days ago
125.

Demi    

Obviously, TMZ that you are pandering to the mixed-up culture that tolerates this kind of behavior. The truth has to be, "this poor child". What a truly mixed-up foundation he will grow-up in.

1622 days ago
126.

Derek    

I'm sad about the level of hate in these comments. Does it harm you in any way if someone identifies as a man? Do you know anything about the very real diagnosis of gender dyshporia? Do you think that gender decisions will inhibit this family from loving their baby? Doyou have any real information that would prove that these parents are unfit, or do you just fall back on bias and bigotry?



These are the same comments from people who were against mixed-race marriages and offspring (that sadly still exist) in past decades. The one who are against anything different than themselves and trot out simplistic statements like 'it's against nature.' People have used that excuse for their own ignorance for centuries, and you wouldn't know because you won't educate yourself.



I think people really need to examine their own reaction. My guess is it come directly from ignorance and fear of the small groups of people who are different than you or different from the mainstream. In the end, I feel sorry for you all, because your world is so small and so hate-filled that you just sound miserable. Truly miserable. I hope you see what makes us all the same instead of what makes us different.

1621 days ago
127.

James Fiddler    

RE: 132
Derek:
It always amazes me how those who hold to an arbitrary system of right and wrong are quick to dismiss concerns from others about choices people make and the effects of those choices on others, particularly children. Fence-riders have, for millenia, dismissed systems of morality as impinging on the rights of the individual. The individual is always perceived as having the absolute right to arbitrary morality. However, when those "rights" impinge on the rights of another individual, the arbitrary adherents diverge upon one of two points: If the right being exercised by the party of the first part are aligned to liberal ideology, i.e., supports homosexuality, liberal sexual identity, reproductive choice, then the party of the first part has the right-of-way. If the rights of the party of the first part are aligned to conservative or traditional systems of morality, then the party of the first part must yield. Arbitrary morality is protected insomuch as it is favorable to the left-of-center. Without straying onto the slippery slope, why does the lesbian couple who has decided to become homosexual men have more of a right to express their preferences than the child has a right to a stable, traditional family? Many studies have been performed that have demonstrated the most stable, loving, and emotionally supportive familial arrangement for kids- one that allows for a healthy development of self and emotional security- is the traditional kind, with one mother and one father, both born that way. It is not hate that causes one to question if two women who want to be men can raise a child who will develop with a healthy emotional state. It is not hate that causes one to hypothesize that two women who cannot figure out who they are will have a difficult time helping their child develop a strong sense of identity. Concern for a child's welfare is what causes this questioning.

1621 days ago
128.

Derek    

I'm sorry, James, but not only do I disagree but your argument is lacking factual evidence that it hangs on. You state that an an arbitrary system of morality that enforces the individual over the welfare of others (in this case children) is wrong.



That's an obvious statement, but then you proceed to state 'many studies' indicate that a heterosexual upbringing is more stable and healthy, when in fact these studies are in the minority.



In fact, studies by the American Psychological Association state there is no empirical evidence to show children are adversely affected by same-sex parents (http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting.aspx).



Or perhaps you can look at Dr. Perrin's study from the peer-reviewed Pediatrics magazine in 2002, to paraphrase:
"Evidence shows that children's optimal development is influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by its particular structural form."

I'm sure you'll dismiss a group of qualified and experienced scientists as 'liberal biased,' but that only shows that for all your bluster, you have preconceived notions that you look for evidence to support.



Rather the 'many studies' you quote are in fact the minority of studies, and are dismissed by most if not all in the scientific community.



If you're going to spend so much time pontificating on morals and individuals and THEN proceed to your proven incorrect arguments against non-traditional families, I suggest you provide some valid evidence, and spare us all the hot air. You are biased against people who are not heterosexual and do not fit into gender norms. You're not alone, obviously, but that doesn't make it correct.

This isn't about individuals, this is about the basics: a child needs love and stability and people are disproving you every day with their families.



I won't even go into what you think is "non-arbitrary" morality, but I'm sure it has something to do with a highly editorialized collection of writing from the Bronze Age, but I'm just guessing there.

1621 days ago
129.

James Fiddler    

Derek:
There is an old, if not inappropriate, adage that states: "Only show enough to win." I don't believe I need to explain. I have, as an educator and counselor, reviewed quite a number of studies on the issue. In spite of my knack of prose, I will refer you, instead, to a very succinct statement on the validity of the studies you are relying on:
From a 1993 study by Belcastro, Gramlich, Nicholson, Price, and Wilson (published 1994), as cited by Wardle (1997): "...an independent examination of the
methodological validity and reliability of fourteen post-1975 published "data-based studies
addressing the affects of homosexual parenting on children's sexual and social functioning,"
found:
'The most impressive finding is that all of the studies lacked external validity.
Furthermore, not a single study remotely represented any sub-population of
homosexual parents. This limitation, in terms of scientific inference, is imposing.
With only three exceptions... the studies' designs presented moderate to fatal
threats to their internal validity. Seven studies did not utilize a control group
and only three studies satisfactorily attempted to match comparison groups...



The majority of studies also suffered from internal validity flaws such as
inadequate instrumentation and disparate testing conditions that... were well
within the researchers' control.
Finally,... most were biased towards proving homosexual parents were fit
parents. Some of the published works had to disregard their own results in order
to conclude that homosexuals were fit parents.”
This study concluded that "the statement that there are no significant differences
in children reared by homosexual parents versus heterosexual parents is not
supported by the published research base." (pp. 838-840)



Sociologist Patricia Morgan has also stated that the plethora of studies on this question over the last 20 years has bore out that children do better educationally, behaviorally, etc. in homes where their biological parents (one male and one female) are married.



Reliable, externally valid studies have demonstrated overwhelmingly that married heterosexual couples, who are the biological parents of the children, make better parents. I understand your bitterness at being called out on issues of fact, but my arguments? Bronze age? Not quite.



1621 days ago
130.

Derek    

James,



How interesting that you are implying that I'm cherry-picking my studies to prove my point, when you are in fact doing the same. However, the studies you cite are used strictly within ideologically conservative right-wing publications to prove their point that homosexuality is 'bad.' Please supply evidence of studies that are actually agreed on by the majority of sociologists, psychologists, etc.
Instead you send one case that questions the methodology of the American Psychological Association. I'm afraid even a cursory look at your citations shows them to be accepted by those of a more conservative ideology (family research council, etc.), and I'd venture to say that they are not taken seriously by the majority of those in the scientific community. Please include evidence and links to disprove that, as I'm genuinely curious.
In fact please cite any study that is generally accepted. Yours are fringe, and you've found them well, and I believe that's becuase you find what you're looking for, and that's an excuse to devalue same-sex couples, and probably see them as morally 'wrong.'
Because I see countless studies backing up my claims, and you have only a few lone voices, over-used by political groups and 'morality' groups. How ironic that your quote perfectly explains your own bias. Nice touch with your credentials, as well. As if that bolsters your argument on the internet. Instead, it implies a desperation to hold onto your own biases by whatever means you can.



On an anectdotal note, how many children do you know who have been raised by same-sex parents? This can't prove anything, but I sincerely doubt you actually do know anyone.

1621 days ago
131.

James Fiddler    

I have implied nothing of the sort. I am simply demonstrating that independent review of the literature demonstrates a lack of external and, in some cases internal, validity in the majority of articles postulating the equivalence of heterosexual and homosexual parenting. These are from peer-reviewed journals such as the Journal of Divorce and Remarriage (which, I might point out, is published by Routledge, the same publisher of the Journal of Homosexuality,) Adolescence, and American Sociological Review. These are hardly right-wing periodicals.



Also, you like to quote the APA; I might point out that, in a clinical sense, the APA states that homosexuality is only a problem if the client views it as a problem. They neither heartily endorse nor heartily revile the practice. If a client comes in and does not state any adverse emotional reaction to their parents' homosexuality, the clinician leaves it alone. If, however, the client demonstrates negative emotional reactions to their parents' homosexuality, therapy ensues.



How many instances of homosexual parenting have I personally witnessed? 3. In one instance (a cousin of mine), the child's mother returned to heterosexuality while he was quite young. In the second (another cousin), the children were dissociative as a result of having already had several fathers in the house. In the third, the daughter had significant emotional difficulties and refused to acknowledge her mother's lifestyle out of disgust. I'm sure you will spin this one as a result of peer and environmental reaction, but that is of no consequence to me.

1621 days ago
132.

Alex    

Thanks for the additional info, Derek.
To be honest, as humans, I don’t think we’ll ever completely agree on a subject such as this. (Which is sad, but human nature I suppose.) We all have our ingroup biases. I’m a lesbian, so of course I have personal feelings about this subject that may cloud my judgment. By no means do I feel less fit to raise a child than any heterosexual parent. I have so much love to give… I hope the contact theory may be put into action in order to reduce the prejudice exhibited by some of these people. As a society grounded on constitutional liberties, we can’t really choose what parents may be more or less fit to bring up children, so where is this going?



P.S. I’m disappointed that you didn't have anything to add about my sex vs. gender identity comment, James. I’m curious as to what your thoughts may be on that.

1621 days ago
133.

James Fiddler    

Alex:
Sex vs. gender identity is an evolving research subject. I subscribe to the idea that sex is determined by chromosomes (although I believe exceptions should be made for hermaphrodites), and that gender identity *naturally* follows sex identity. That is, if you possess an XX chromosomal pair, you are and should identify as female. XY, you are and should identify as male. So far, research has indicated that homosexual men either: 1)have a particular gene attached to sex chromosomes that are normally deactivated in utero but fail to do so 2)have an abnormally smaller hypothalamus than is normal (but same size as females), or 3) endured a trauma during childhood that re-programmed sexual identity. Certainly this would lend some understanding as to why a male would wish to live as a female. I suspect there are parallels to homosexual females. The point of argument, then, is should a female, for example, be able to go against nature and societal constricts and imagine themselves male, or should they accept their genetics and work within the confines of their sex? This is still being researched, and I will be interested to know the results.

1620 days ago
134.

Lindy    

To all of you people saying that they're sick for putting their children through this, maybe we should instead be calling bigots like you sick for teaching our children that bullying them is okay.

1111 days ago
135.

CarolineGrace    

HE is a man. If he says he is, than he is. There isn't one factor that determines somebody's gender. If he wants to be a guy, let him be a guy! I honestly don't understand why people can't just accept that.

491 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

Around The Web