The Woman Who Was So Glad to Have a Baby and Become a Father

By Michael Brown Published on March 10, 2019

What’s wrong with this story? Everything. And it’s a microcosm of today’s upside-down, terribly-confused world.

In short, the story goes like this.

Wyley Simpson is a biological female who is attracted to men. And Wyley just had a baby.

So far, so good?

Not quite. Wyley identifies as a male, which makes him a gay transgender male – a woman who identifies as a man but is attracted to men.

Wyley Finds a Partner

Wyley met Stephan Gaeth, who is a biological male who is attracted to men, which would make him a gay male. That explains how they met on the gay male dating app Grindr.

But Wyley still had her reproductive organs intact (but no breasts, which she already had removed). What to do?

Because Wyley “had been on testosterone treatments and sports a beard, deeper voice,” she didn’t think she could have a child.

But lo and behold, Stephan was able to impregnant Wyley (apparently meaning that they engaged in heterosexual sex), and to her shock, she began to experience morning sickness. (Are you following this so far?)

In the words of the narrator of Extreme Love, which carried this story with enthusiasm, “carrying a baby isn’t something many men expect to experience.” (Sorry, but even my sarcasm fails me here.)

The Fact Is … 

The fact is that men don’t get pregnant.

Men don’t experience morning sickness.

Men don’t carry babies.

And men don’t give birth to babies.

Only women do.

Biological women.


I know that Wyley said, “I am a man, and I am actually pregnant.”

But if she is a man – I mean a biological male – then she is a he and is not pregnant.


For her part, though, Wyley could not be happier: “I’ve always wanted to be a father.”

Except that a woman can never become a father.

If she were a father, she would be a male.

And if she was a male, she would not be able to have a baby.

You simply cannot have it both ways.

The Pain of This Story

Is it possible that Wyley and Stephan really love each other?

You bet.

Is it possible that they adore their child, a boy (well, at least, he looks like a boy!) named Rowan Fox?


But that does not lessen the pain of this whole story.

Nor does it lessen the unfair circumstances in which this child will be raised, with two “fathers,” one of whom is actually his mother.

Even more tragically still, stories like this are not isolated.

In August, 2017, CNN reported that, “Trystan Reese, a transgender man living in Portland, Oregon, has given birth to a boy with his partner of seven years, Biff Chaplow. Their son, Leo Murray Chaplow, was born July 14.”

So, once again, a biological female who is attracted to men and who identifies as a male has given birth to a son, who will doubtless call her “Dad” rather than “Mom.”

And how, pray tell, do we know Trystan gave birth to a boy?

The plumbing may be male, but who knows what’s inside? Why not raise him genderless (the latest, confused fad)? As noted on, “Prince Harry and Meghan Markle May Take ‘Fluid Approach to Gender’ With Their Baby. It’s the latest trend in parenting.”

A Small Error Multiplied Becomes a Consequential Error

In my 2011 book, A Queer Thing Happened to America, I quoted from a June, 2000 story in the ultra-left Village Voice titled “Two Dads with a Difference – Neither of Us Was Born Male.”

As explained by Patrick Califia-Rice, “We are transgendered men (female-to-male, or FTM). My boyfriend is the mother of my child.”

So, both females became “males,” and somehow they had a baby, with one of the men being the “father.”

I can only shake my head, in sadness, not condemnation.

Please Support The Stream: Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.

In the Queer Thing book, I wrote these words, which I believe bear repeating.

When Korean Airlines flight 007 began to veer ever so slightly off its flight path from Anchorage, Alaska to Seoul, Korea early in the morning of September 1, 1983, there seemed to be little reason for concern. And so, 28 minutes into its journey, when it was 5.6 miles north of its expected route, there was neither urgency nor panic. But that slight deviation continued to get more and more pronounced: 5.6 nautical miles soon became 60 nautical miles; 60 became 100; 100 became 160, until the plane crossed into Soviet airspace over Kamchatka. The end was tragic.

The Soviet military, claiming that this was an intentional American provocation, shot down KAL 007, taking the lives of all 269 passengers and crew, including 22 children (the youngest being 8 months old) as well as an American Congressman. When the plane finally went down, it was more than 300 miles off track, and so, that slight variation from the proper trajectory became a major deviation, until a terrible tragedy occurred.

The lessons we can learn from this are obvious. A small error multiplied becomes a large, consequential error. A slight deviation from the path becomes enormous and even deadly over the course of time. Any marksman will tell you that the tiniest miscalculation in aim will result in a badly missed target. It’s all about the trajectory: If followed to its natural and logical conclusion, where will the current direction take us?”

We’re finding out the tragic answers to that question every day.

Only a gospel-based moral and cultural revolution can stem the flood.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Like the article? Share it with your friends! And use our social media pages to join or start the conversation! Find us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, MeWe and Gab.

Military Photo of the Day: USS Michael Murphy
Tom Sileo
More from The Stream
Connect with Us