Alex Blaze

Meet Stephen Ira Beatty, America's second most-famous trans man

Filed By Alex Blaze | June 20, 2010 4:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Living, Transgender & Intersex
Tags: Annette Bening, ftm, kathlyn beatty, stephen ira beatty, transgender

Not everyone has the most supportive parents:

Stephen-Ira-Beatty.png

Kathlyn Beatty, 18, is now known as Stephen Ira and is said to be planning a sex-change operation.

According to reports in the U.S., Hollywood veteran Beatty, 73, is 'crushed' by his child's determination to change her gender.

Meanwhile Miss Bening, 52, who starred in American Beauty, is trying to support her daughter as best she can, despite finding the situation heartbreaking.

The National Enquirer reported that the teenager was currently attending college dressed as a man.

Waiting until he turns 18 to come out and live his life as he wants to isn't exactly a sign of the most supportive parents, Update from 12/2011: Stephen Ira contacted me to say he came out at 14.

especially considering the Daily Mail says:

'He and Annette have tried to deal with this over the years when their daughter was younger, but she's determined to go ahead with the transgender operation, just like Chastity [Bono].

'She repeatedly told her parents that once she turns 18 she would take matters into her own hands.'

And who know what the Beatty's were doing to keep this hush-hush before Stephen turned 18. Now that he's an adult, though....

Hopefully his parents will eventually come around and become come supportive advocates for transgender rights as well.


Recent Entries Filed under Transgender & Intersex:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Wilson46201 | June 20, 2010 5:52 PM

Cute! He looks like Justin Bieber with a haircut...

I'm not sure that's a good thing, Wilson. Justin Bieber creeps me out.

Someone beat me to it. I was about to ask why a pic of Justin Bieber (who I wish Bill Hicks had lived to comment on) was accompanying this post.

This comment has been deleted for violation of the Terms of Service.

While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising.

Assuming that this story is true, a father being crushed at his child's gender transition is not necessarily an inappropriate reaction. After all, a parent has a lifetime of experience and expectations for their child, and alot of emotional investment in the relationship. Being crushed is a genuine emotional response, not a judgement. If the parent actively interferes with the transition process, that's another matter.

People who don't have gender issues aren't equipped to understand what it means for those of us who do, and haven't had the same amount of time and preparation to process the information as the person presenting it.

And while Stephen has the potential of becoming a famous transman, right now he isn't. Perhaps the hyperbole of dubbing him the second most famous one in this country is designed to pique interest in the article, or a prediction.

If the Beattys aren't as supportive of Stephen as they might be, there's always Aunt Shirley. I can't imagine that she wouldn't embrace Stephen with all her heart. Having said that, I'll have to admonish myself with what I tell people who make assumptions about how those in their lives will react to their coming out as trans: you never know. Invariably, there will be people you expect to be supportive who aren't, and those who you just know who won't be, are. That's the wacky world of gender!

I disagree completely. A parent openly declaring to the media that he is "crushed" by his child's development as a healthy human being is being unspeakably selfish, and is obviously concerned solely with taking the opportunity to wage emotional welfare against his child.

Desiree, your conclusion is dependent on the assumption that Beatty made an open statement to the press about his son's transition. I think this is highly doubtful. If he had, it would have been covered by all of the media, not just one British newspaper. Further, Beatty has a very long history of being especially private and not speaking to the press.

So we don't know if the statement is true, and if it is, someone was likely speaking out of school.

This comment has been deleted for violation of the Terms of Service.

While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising.

What difference does it make it would have came out sooner or later why have surgery God makes no mistakes he makes masterpieces

I can say from personal experience the truth of reactions on the part of people to the news of someone coming out as Trans. Sadly more often than not they would rather you continued to live in agony than try to seek a correction to that, adding to the misunderstanding surrounding the condition of being Transgender. When they should if they wished to help someone show support and learn the truth so that the ignorance about it might someday come to an end.

Can we help the family? Send some Trans 101 stuff to them so they can get a clue?
Maybe a copy of "True Selves"?

OK, they're famous, Icons, symbols yada yada. They're also human. Maybe we can make the world just a little better.

Renee Thomas | June 20, 2010 11:11 PM

For the Beatty's, getting in touch with Trans Youth Family Allies would be a good start. Kim Pearson has done the good, hard work in educating folks around the issue of transgender children. The Beatty's could do a lot worse than turning to TYFA for support.

Let's see, this story is from which publication... oh yes, the Enquirer—an outstanding and highly accurate weekly journal. (sic)

1) It's not news, Steven's public trans ID is two years old and was widely published in 2008. I think his parents have done an amazing job not allowing his life to become a media circus.

2) Who cares if he's celebrity spawn... do NOT, I repeat, do NOT parade him around at GLAAD Media Awards and other fund raising events like a trained monkey. He's a kid, not an expert and not a "prize catch."

3) Of course he's not going to get SRS, If anything, I'm sure he's just getting top surgery first as every other trans guy does who does a surgical transition.

4) No one has ANY idea how his parents are reacting to his transition. It's just as likely his parents are upset about his story being pasted all over the Enquirer (or here) than him transitioning. I hope he can do this without having his college life f*cked up by paparazzi and bored gay bloggers.

Gina, top surgery is considered SRS for guys according to the Benjamin Standards. Granted, breasts aren't genitals, but the powers that be give them the same import when their on someone who was born with a female body.

"Gina, top surgery is considered SRS for guys according to the Benjamin Standards. Granted, breasts aren't genitals, but the powers that be give them the same import when their on someone who was born with a female body."

Rory, don't even get me started on that one. The WPATH does state something like that and it's absurd. Top surgery is more akin to FFS. SRS for trans men should be a Hysto/Oophorectomy (which is akin to an Orchiectomy in MTFs) or a Meta. But I don't want to derail the focus away from Steven and coverage of his personal journey.

"SRS for trans men should be a Hysto/Oophorectomy (which is akin to an Orchiectomy in MTFs) or a Meta".

Oh, boy. Okay, while the ovaries are the analogous organ to the testes, they are not genitals. They are unseen, as is the uterus (which is not analogous), and do not effect transition in terms of passing, sexual relations, legal status, or safety for FTMs. So there should be no reason to require it.

However, top surgery (or chest reconstruction surgery, for the uninitiated) does affect transition for many of the above reasons, as breasts are unmistakablely female.

Rory, so does a face impacted by testosterone... but FFS is only considered irrelevant cosmetic surgery and only slightly even mentioned by WPATH. You can bind and hide breasts, you can't hide a face.

I'm not saying trans men should be required to have hystos/oophorectomies to change their legal gender, but there is a clear unfairness which requires trans women to have full SRS (they don't even accept a orchiectomy) to change their legal gender while, in many states, trans men can get top surgery and leave their entire reproductive system intact, and they can obtain legal gender change. Not fair... and a subject which isn't discussed often enough in the trans community.

Btw, trans women getting SRS has nothing to do with "passing" in most situations (and I say that as a post-op) so to me, that's an irrelevant point. If it's sexual relations which are being legislated by the government (which, of course, they are) then the only difference between having a man with a vagina vs a woman with a penis is how society stigmatizes (and demonizes) one more strongly than the other.

Rory, so does a face impacted by testosterone...

The only impact testosterone has on the face is the development of the beard at puberty. The skeletal structure is determined by genetics before birth. The beard can be removed non-surgically, and not all genetic males have facial features that are necessarily distinguishable from genetic females. That is to say, there are many MTFs who pass very well without FFS (facial femininization surgery, for the uninitiated).

but FFS is only considered irrelevant cosmetic surgery and only slightly even mentioned by WPATH.

Well, I don't think it's so much considered irrelevant as not in need of specialized monitoring. Once again, not as sensational as genitals.

You can bind and hide breasts, you can't hide a face.

Not all breasts can be hidden by binding. There's this physics issues of being able to displace only so much volume in a finite space.

I'm not saying trans men should be required to have hystos/oophorectomies to change their legal gender, but there is a clear unfairness which requires trans women to have full SRS (they don't even accept a orchiectomy) to change their legal gender

Different jurisdictions have different requirements for different areas of legal status, and not all require SRS for men or women.

while, in many states, trans men can get top surgery and leave their entire reproductive system intact, and they can obtain legal gender change. Not fair...

The remedy for unfairness to MTFs is not to be equally unfair to FTMs, unless you're more interested in making sure that FTMs aren't allowed to reproduce than alleviating the burden on MTFs of becoming infertile. Of course the whole debate is specious since reproduction is not really a consideration for or against transition.

Btw, trans women getting SRS has nothing to do with "passing" in most situations (and I say that as a post-op) so to me, that's an irrelevant point.

I'm aware of that, although I have heard MTFs complain that they don't pass even though they're post-op.

The funny thing is that for reasons beyond me, while orchies may not count as satisfying a requirement for SRS in certain circumstances, some doctors who perform them require the same therapist letters as if it was SRS. I guess you just can't trust a "man" who wants to cut "his" balls off.

Rory said:

"The only impact testosterone has on the face is the development of the beard at puberty. The skeletal structure is determined by genetics before birth."

You seriously believe this? Girl and boy babies are skeletally almost indistinguishable at birth--males grow larger skeletons, and broader faces with heavier boning (brow ridges, heavy square jaws, and so forth) over their childhood and especialy during puberty as a result of testosterone.

Rory said:

"The beard can be removed non-surgically, and not all genetic males have facial features that are necessarily distinguishable from genetic females. That is to say, there are many MTFs who pass very well without FFS (facial femininization surgery, for the uninitiated)."

Yes, not *all* do, and *a few* pass well without surgery, but in my experience the vast majority of trans women *do* need facial surgery to pass well, beard or no beard.

Oh, and I realize we are talking about states within the US, but in other places (Germany, for instance), a majot requirement for legal sex/gender reassignment is that you are now sterile. In fact, my surgery letter here in the states included this statement, too.

Carol

Carol, a very small minority of transwomen have FFS. Way fewer than those who have SRS. If it was true that most MTFs don't pass without facial surgery, then almost no MTF would pass. That's just not the case.

Of course I suppose we could argue about what constitutes passing. My definition is that women who can successfully live and function in that role in everyday life. We forget that most people aren't scouring the crowd looking for people who are trans. It's such a major part of our lives, we assume that other people think in those terms as well.

Rory said:

"Carol, I wouldn't call top surgery a smaller barrier to transition than SRS. The requirements for it are the same; it is very expensive; and its major surgery. And unlike vaginoplasty for trans women, many FTMs cannot pass without it."

I dont want to get into a pissing contest into who has it worse, MTF or FTM, but chest surgery is a different order of everything than SRS. I feel we all have it tough enough, but I feel you are minimizing what MTF transitioners go through.

I just put together a 'trans medical needs' document for the GLBT org at work a couple of weeks back, and researched medical costs as part of that.

Chest reconstruction is $6,000 to $9,000, and SRS for MTF is $15,000 to $25,000 (in the US; did not consider OUS). So yes, chest surgery is expensive, but much less so than for MTF SRS...and $10,000 or so is a big difference for most trans ppl. Of course, the good news for MTF transitioners is that SRS gets them 'all the way there', while FTM transitioners have more expenses and surgeries to get much of any bottom surgery done.

And of course, chest reconstruction is major surgery, and is painful, risky, and traumatic. However, chest reconstruction is more of an out-patient procedure, with a few days of needing someone to take care of you, while MTF SRS requires a 5-day stay in hospital, and full-time care for at least two weeks. Not to mention dilation 5 or 6 times a day for 30 minutes each, and 3 or 4 times a day for several months. So again, huge commitment for both, but the difference in what you have to go through is actually pretty big.

I do agree that it is easier to hide male genitals than breasts. And I absolutely agree that blaming trans men for the difference in requirements is wrong. However, you seem to be determined to minimize the things that trans women have to go through, and that bothers me.

"I dont want to get into a pissing contest into who has it worse, MTF or FTM, but chest surgery is a different order of everything than SRS. I feel we all have it tough enough, but I feel you are minimizing what MTF transitioners go through."

Actually, Carol, I responded to your comment because I felt you were minimizing what FTMs go through.

It wasn't my intention to minimize what MTFs go through, nor do I believe I did. I'm intimately familiar with all aspects of transition and vaginoplasty, save actually having it performed on me.

Yes, it costs more than chest reconstruction surgery, especially in the US; although the cost differential in Thailand is a good deal less. But for a lot of people, once something is out of financial reach for you, it doesn't matter if it's two, or three, or five times more than you can afford. It's still out of reach.

Rory, No, it's not a pissing contest or keeping score to admit an inequity one subgroup faces which another doesn't. I know you're not the enemy Rory, I hope you're my brother. But lately, I've observed a lot of obliviousness among trans men over a number a issues (with a few exceptions... like Chaz Bono!) over reclaiming the term "tranny", over how violence and discrimination impacts different parts of the trans community differently, trans men claiming entry to women's spaces (while trans women are often left out) and issues like this. I want to see the men in our community (I'm talking men, I could care less about the boi's) step up and be honest about what's going down. That's a hope and a challenge, not a disrespect (I would never say you have it 'easy') nor a discounting of your experiences and trials. I'm requesting honesty.

"But lately, I've observed a lot of obliviousness among trans men over a number a issues (with a few exceptions... like Chaz Bono!) over reclaiming the term "tranny",..."

I don't see the debate over the term "tranny" breaking down between gender lines. I think there's a reasonable argument for each position. I don't see how you can attribute one viewpoint or the other related transition direction.

" ...trans men claiming entry to women's spaces (while trans women are often left out) and issues like this."

I don't think that makes any sense, either. That's the very definition of having your cake and eating it, too. Either you're a man or you aren't.

"The only impact testosterone has on the face is the development of the beard at puberty."

Wrong Rory. It's determined by a combination of hormones and genes. The presence of testosterone has everything to do with how facial bones develop. Okay, so you're saying some assigned female people at birth have breasts which do pass with binding and some don't. And some assigned males at birth have facial structures which might pass with some degree of transition and others don't. Yet one deserves to be recognized by surgery as criteria for gender change and one doesn't?

Tell me which state allows legal gender change without SRS for MTFs? Name one please. I don't know of any state which allows legal gender change for MTF women with orchiectomices. (there are a few transitioners which have scammed their way into getting the documentation under the table). There are a large number of states which only require FTMs to get top surgery for access to legal gender change and I'm going to say this is profoundly discriminatory.

Yes, I agree, people should be able to change their genders without surgery but that's not going to happen for a good long time.

FTM top surgery is NOT in any way analogous to SRS. It isn't. The reason for the laws has to do with the imagined "boogyman" of a "penis in the woman's room" whereas people don't care about "vagina in the men's room." It's how trans women are objectified and demonized and It's bullshit, and it bothers me that more trans men don't come out and support trans women in this inequity.

Sorry for the derail, but this is an important issue which intimately impacts people's lives.

gina said:

"FTM top surgery is NOT in any way analogous to SRS. It isn't."

Well, they do both eliminate something that sticks out (not being funny here, have thought about this a lot, too), but I agree with you otherwise.

The more direct analogies are: SRS wo/vaginoplasty in trans women to removing the ovaries, vagina, and uterus in trans men; vaginoplasty to at least metoidioplasty and scrotoplasty in trans men.

Not that I want to impose more restrictions on trans men! I say more power to them, I am glad the surgial barriers to legal transition are smaller. I just wish that, as you say, FFS would be considered as enough for MTF legal transition, because that and top surgery basically only change appearance from appearing more like one sex to appearing more like the other (sorries, assuming a binary here). And I agree this is due the dual standard of men/male parts being considered far more sexually agressive than women/female parts.

Of course, I am not sures how much this helps transitioners either, tho, as FFS is very expensive too, so ppl who arent having bottom surgery b/c of money would still be locked out of legal transtion...

Carol, not everyone can afford or needs full blown FFS, but the trans women who have done it (or any combination of facial surgeries or breast augmentation to aid in their passing (AND SAFETY) get zero credit for it in terms of legal gender change whereas trans men (who are, on some level) able to hide their most obvious gendered characteristic (breasts) are often allowed to change their legal gender with only top surgery. And whenever this inequity is brought up you'd think you were supporting the war in Iraq by the shocked reaction.

If anything, being a gender variant looking trans woman due to facial influence of testosterone (and genes) is in a far more dangerous position and discriminated against than being a trans man with bound breasts. Of course, I know the government gives a damn about trans people's safety or health care needs.

"Carol, not everyone can afford or needs full blown FFS, but the trans women who have done it (or any combination of facial surgeries or breast augmentation to aid in their passing (AND SAFETY) get zero credit for it in terms of legal gender change..."

Gina, not that I wish to start another argument, but if you want legal recognition for FFS, should it be necessary to follow the same guidelines (the Benjamin Standards) to get it as SRS? What about breast augmentation? Does it make any sense to you that anyone can get it without following any sort of protocol? And while removing breasts isn't analogous to removing genitals, it is unquestionably analogous to adding them on MTFs. Yet surgeons do require adherence to the Benjamin Standards for FTMs to get them removed.

" ...whereas trans men (who are, on some level) able to hide their most obvious gendered characteristic (breasts) are often allowed to change their legal gender with only top surgery."

You're kinda stuck on this idea that FTMs can hide their breasts. Some can. Those with very small breasts. Trust me, most can't. Some can only disguise their existance with all sorts of machinations of wearing multiple shirts and jackets, which of course looks completely natural indoors and in the summer. Not. Some are so large that they cannot bind at all. Again, the physics thing. It's also not healthy. There are FTMs who suffer physical injury from it. And it's uncomfortable as hell.

I know of no FTM who opts to have genital surgery in lieu of chest surgery. I realize that most of the world is genital-obsessed. But unless you're naked with someone, no one knows what you have between your legs. But it's very hard for a man to walk through the world and live with breasts.

Rory, the WPATH standards are very irregularly followed for FTM top surgery. There are tons of trasmasculine people in San Francisco who are only doing top surgery and nothing else. Many of them aren't even changing names or gender on their licenses (granted, many ID as genderqueer and they aren't legally accommodated either).

Top surgery 7-8K in North America, less in Thailand or Belgrade. SRS in North America 18-28K, 10-15K in Thailand.

Changing gender on driver's licenses in no way impacts the Soc. Security administration outing people at work. It's not a legal gender change. And actually, there are many states which won't change the gender marker on a DL until after SRS for MTFs.

I don't know about Iowa, but I would like to see that language in writing. I've known trans women in Washington State who were unable to change their gender until after SRS, so unless this is within the last year or two, I'm skeptical. I want to see proof.

Here's what Becky Allison's site says about Washington State (and she's usually very up to date about that info:

"Washington

Washington State will issue a new birth certificate for name and/or gender changes
(after SRS has been completed).

Here's what they need:

(1) A letter signed by the doctor performing the surgery (on his letterhead)
which is also witnessed by a Notary Public stating that the surgery has been done."

My issue is that I've never heard trans men mention the inequity of this issue. That Chaz Bono can get top surgery and a week later he's applying for gender change and there are trans women living in the Bay Area who transitioned 25-30 years ago and are still legally male. I have yet to see one trans man ever bring up this issue on a blog or opinion piece. It's as if they're scared to rock the boat about how comparatively easier (not easy) it is for them to get their gender changes.

They are no longer called the Benjamin Standards, they're the WPATH standards.

I don't have time to write a full answer to this comment, as I have to leave to facilitate the weekly Washington Gender Alliance Bellingham Open Support meeting. However, I can absolutely guarantee that my information about the WA. birth certificate policy is correct, and the information that you attribute to Becky Allison is incorrect. But I did want to set the record straight at least for that part of your post before I had to go.

@Rory, you say, "And while removing breasts isn't analogous to removing genitals, it is unquestionably analogous to adding them on MTFs."

Actually, I think I disagree. Granted, it's pretty much the same body part, so there's a surgical or medical analogue here. (So if that's what you meant, then I guess I do agree.) But I feel that there's quite a bit of disparity with regard to personal and social aspects.

@Ginasf, you say, "My issue is that I've never heard trans men mention the inequity of this issue."

I'm sorry to hear this. I've heard/seen plenty of trans men mention this, both online and in person--sometimes to criticize the double standard, and sometimes to acknowledge the double standard and express gratitude that they aren't subjected to it.

However, later in your comment, you specifically say that you've never seen a trans man mention the double standard "on a blog or opinion piece." I don't remember whether I have; probably not. But I don't read trans blogs, and I don't read every editorial that comes my way. I suspect that (as you say) this particular issue doesn't come up much on the male side. But believe me, some guys are saying it--just not where you happen to be looking.

"I am glad the surgial barriers to legal transition are smaller."

Carol, I wouldn't call top surgery a smaller barrier to transition than SRS. The requirements for it are the same; it is very expensive; and its major surgery. And unlike vaginoplasty for trans women, many FTMs cannot pass without it.

"And some assigned males at birth have facial structures which might pass with some degree of transition and others don't. Yet one deserves to be recognized by surgery as criteria for gender change and one doesn't?"

I never said that. Just because I recognize the importance of chest surgery for FTMs doesn't mean I don't value FFS for transwomen. But more importantly, I never said, nor do I believe, it should be necessary to have surgery at all to change your legal gender status. So I'm not sure what we're arguing about.

"Tell me which state allows legal gender change without SRS for MTFs? Name one please."

Washington State does not require surgery in order to change the gender on your birth certificate. I've seen the written policy, and have aided people in successfully changing their birth certificate. Jillian Weiss recently wrote an article on this blog not too long ago discussing birth certificate policies and cited Iowa as not having a surgical requirement.

In terms of changing gender on driver's licenses, my understanding is that most states don't have a surgery requirement to do that. WA. state has never had that requirement, even years before the current birth certificate policy. And of course the new trump card to all of this is the new passport policy.

"FTM top surgery is NOT in any way analogous to SRS. It isn't."

I had acknowledged that since breasts are not genitals, it didn't make sense to me that it was considered SRS. However, it doesn't alter the fact that the medical powers that be and the Benjamin Standards do consider it as SRS and as a result issue guidelines for it. And if you need to satisfy requirements to get it, then the government should honor that if they require surgery to change your legal status.

"The reason for the laws has to do with the imagined "boogyman" of a "penis in the woman's room" whereas people don't care about "vagina in the men's room."

Agreed. 100 percent. Because The Penis rules and is all powerful, and everything is withers in Its presence.

"It's how trans women are objectified and demonized and It's bullshit, and it bothers me that more trans men don't come out and support trans women in this inequity."

I don't know of any transmen who believe MTFs should have surgery in order to have a legal gender change. I don't know why you think that FTMs are in some sort of competition with MTFs for most oppressed.

Hi Rory,
I just found these blogs in my search for how to change my gender/name on birth certificate in WA state, and would like to know where you found the written policy that says they don't require any surgery... I just checked the Vital Stats page, and they say they require a letter from a surgeon... Thank you for any info you can provide, much of my medical care will be covered once my birth certificate says what it should!

Lee -

If you e-mail the Washington Gender Alliance at info@WashingtonGenderAlliance.com, I will send you the entire procedure, what you need do, and who to contact and where, to get your Washington State birth certificate changed.

I would like you to send me the specific link for where you saw that a surgeon's letter is required so I can address that with the proper authorities because it is wrong.

Do you still live in WA? If so, the Alliance can assist you with other transition issues you might have.

Rory

"Gina, top surgery is considered SRS for guys according to the Benjamin Standards. Granted, breasts aren't genitals, but the powers that be give them the same import when their on someone who was born with a female body."

Rory, don't even get me started on that one. The WPATH does state something like that and it's absurd. Top surgery is more akin to FFS. SRS for trans men should be a Hysto/Oophorectomy (which is akin to an Orchiectomy in MTFs) or a Meta. But I don't want to derail the focus away from Steven and coverage of his personal journey.

Let's just say the press coverage isn't talking about top surgery or what is or isn't SRS, they're ALWAYS interested in genitals.

Regan DuCasse | June 21, 2010 11:06 AM

They are not the only celebrity family dealing with this. Chaz Bono is right in the same city, as are plenty of support groups and individuals who have gone through transition.

Chaz is in his forties, I would think Stephen Ira's health options are better, being so much younger. Chaz is also m-f so having had the experience is a plus for similarities.
And having famous parents.

I don't know what to say about his parents being 'crushed'.

Marie Osmond's son took a header from a balcony and died at age 18 while attending fashion school here in Los Angeles.
And Michael Douglas's son Cameron is going to be serving about 5-10 years in prison on drug trafficking/abuse charges.

I'd say that there are worse things that happen to the young ones than being trans gender. Which can't even be called bad thing.
Adjusting to it is possible, and recommended. And Stephen can get on with his life. This is about HIS happiness, not theirs, when it's all said and done.
And best to them all.

Regan, first, Chaz is FTM. Perhaps you had a typo. Second, I don't appreciate your comparing a child coming out as trans with being a drug dealer or committing suicide. Being trans isn't a criminal or moral failing or a tragedy.

He's a little hottie is what he is! Yowza!

Bil, stop perving over the child. :-( Yeesh.

elle swan | July 8, 2010 7:05 AM

i would suggest that Warren Beatty himself has "gender issues" of a different kind and from a different time. As a "white, priviledged man living in U.S.A." he was somehow deemed as "successful" while he wrecklessly "wooed" countless females who fell for his "male" charm. People, especially other "men", admired his "manhood". where did all that energy lead him, and what effect did such "choices" have on gender identification and cultural constructs?

DexterMorgan | July 20, 2010 1:23 PM

This comment has been deleted for violation of the Terms of Service.

While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising.

One can argue whether Stephen Ira is this or whether Stephen Ira is that, but there can be no argument that Stephen Ira is one helluva poet. I heard him a couple years ago at the UnUrban in Santa Monica and just could not believe that this poetry (and not just the verse but the delivery) was coming out of a kid not yet old enough to drive. This kid blew everyone away, and believe me, this is an audience of poets on open-mike night, they are not easy to impress. Much to Stephen's displeasure, after that everyone started calling him "Mozart", as in young genius.

If you ever hear of a Stephen Ira poetry reading, do yourself a favor and check it out.

This comment has been deleted for violation of the Terms of Service.

While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising.

when the child i had misidentified as female for most of his life told me "i need to be a boy", i recall realizing i was undergunned to take on this challenge and immediately started looking for answers to questions i did not even know how to form into questions....

what i find "crushing" are the incomprehensibly difficult elements of transition; trying to find competent medical help, insurance, keeping him safe and alive through high school, his sadness, my forever inability to really know his life....

i long for the day we can move his transition into tangible masculine development, because it is what he believes will make life better and easier....

at the end of the day, the one fact that matters isnt that he is transgender or any other variable that makes him uniquely him ... at the end of the day he is my child and i am his mom... the rest is just details

theflyingarab | October 16, 2010 11:53 PM

This is of course an old article, but I don't think anyone's brought this up yet:

Gotta love how the Daily Mail insists on referring to him as a "she." Not surprised, considering it's the DM, which classifies its celebrity news section as "Femail" -- but still, the disrespect here is just blatant.

There is nothing masculine looking about Stephen Ira.

He looks like a girl dressing up in her brother's suit.

Chaz Bono was another story....he was never feminine-looking.

And, incidentally, it was National Enquirer who said Warren was "crushed" by it all.

They're not always truthful.

"Marie Osmond's son took a header from a balcony and died at age 18 while attending fashion school here in Los Angeles."

Because he was gay and Mommy's Mormon "faith" is even more homophobic than most organized religions.

Annette finds motherhood a burden? Why doesn't this surprise me? If not for the children my guess is Warren would never have stayed with her this long. She plays psychotic roles in her plays and movies and is just as boring to listen to when she gives her interviews. I give them 3 years before the divorce.