Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Today The Stranger Suggests | Assignment: Wrestling Samantha »

Monday, September 3, 2007

For Unto Them a Child is Born

posted by on September 3 at 11:24 AM

First, congrats to Jamie and Eric Pedersen on the birth of their son, Trygve Pedersen. But… uh… the Seattle Gay News’ treatment seems a bit… excessive…


Pedersen’s kid? Our savior? Kinda hard to tell. But should the news of Trygve’s birth really have pushed the news about Sen. Larry Craig below the fold?

And you gotta love the last paragraph of the story. After the SGN tells us that the baby was born at the University of San Diego Hillcrest Medical Center on Monday, August 27, 2007, at 12:44 PM by Cesarean section and that Jamie and Eric were in the next room and that Trygve scored a 9.9 out of 10 during the Apgar check and that the Pedersen family will be staying in San Diego until September 6 and that Jamie’s parents, who live in Puyallup, and Eric’s mom, who lives on the East Coast, will be staying with Eric and Jamie for two weeks after they bring Trygve home, the SGN tells us…

The Pedersens say they are grateful for all the support they have received, but request people respect their privacy while they spend some time with their newborn son.

Yeah, SGN—you might want to respect their privacy.

RSS icon Comments


Babies don't have political affiliations. Besides, years of Family Ties have taught us that he's a future Michael J. Fox. Watch out for that Parkinson's, little guy.

Posted by Jason Josephes | September 3, 2007 11:40 AM

Trygve? Is that a misprint?

Posted by James | September 3, 2007 11:44 AM

how do you pronounce that name?

Posted by Cook | September 3, 2007 11:46 AM

Did you get that big an announcement when you adopted, Dan?

Posted by Gitai | September 3, 2007 11:48 AM

Dan, I'm curious to know your reaction to Jim McGreevey's Washington Post op ed about Craig:

Posted by D | September 3, 2007 12:04 PM

At least they are reporting good news... what a concept.

There is nothing else to say about Senator Craig at this point. The news coverage on him has been 24/7. Enough already.

Congrats to Jamie and Eric!

Posted by duncan | September 3, 2007 12:07 PM

TRYGVE is pronounced TRIG-vee. It is not a misprint. Trygve Lie of Norway was the first United Nations Secretary-General. LIE sounds like LEE. Tryg will soon have a horse name Trygger thanks to Mr. Rogers.

Posted by NORWEGIAN CONSUL-GENERAL | September 3, 2007 12:08 PM

Dan's posting this on Monday but the Gay News came out on Friday afternoon, when the Craig thing was still huge.

Posted by Come Off It | September 3, 2007 12:13 PM

Even though I'm gay, and I'm all for gay parenting - I still get a little sad when I know a child coming into the world will not have an influence of an opposite sex parent. Oh I've tried to get myself into embracing it - I really wish I could shake the feeling I have, but I can't. I was born into a family with wonderful maternal and paternal love on a daily basis - and I know same sex couples can provide abundant love and the child will feel great love but I just can't explain it.. It's still a touch of emptiness. I can't intellectualize it.

Posted by blue | September 3, 2007 12:16 PM

That is one of the best new baby pix I have ever seen - eyes open, rare. Indeed, congrats to Eric and Jamie.

The Iowa story, top fold, hard news, broke on Thr. - and SGN has it on the front page on Friday - seems like solid work to me.

And I have not read about the new baby anywhere except SGN - a scoop I would say.

And Dan, the christ child spoof you are trying only works on repressed Catholics and even then is a little thin.

Larry Craig is so old news after a week, I have craig-fatigue-overload.

Posted by Jack on the Hill | September 3, 2007 12:23 PM

What is it with the Stranger and SGN and the ongoing catfight?
You have your own paper to edit, let them edit theirs.

Posted by e.j. | September 3, 2007 12:25 PM

Blue @9:
Honey, it takes a village. I'm sure there'll be plenty of female role models around for that kid. Aunts, grandmothers, if not by blood, then in the community.
It would only be empty if they were planning on becoming hermits.

Posted by Tizzle | September 3, 2007 12:26 PM

Dan: Every good writer (allegedly) needs a good editor - or is that vice versa, viz:


Read out loud that would be: FOR UN TOTO THEM A CHILD IS BORN. Tell me that's not a Freudian tutu, Desmond.

Posted by DOROTHY'S DOG | September 3, 2007 12:40 PM

#9- your post is really thought provoking -
According to SGN - and quoted in Dan's post - the grandmas are already very focused and will be there, adoring, loving and being good grannies.

The kid is lucky - loving dads, adoring grannies, his college fund is most likely already in the works. Congratulations to the poppas. Nice work, in that this is not an adoption. Daddy sperm at work on a donated egg, then planted in the surrogate mom. Interesting process.

Posted by Angel | September 3, 2007 12:41 PM

Trygve. Trygve. Trygve. Just sort of rolls of the tongue, doesn't it?

Thanks, Norwegian Consul-General for the background and the pronunciation. But I gotta say, this kid is gonna spend his entire life having his name mispronounced.

Sure, naming him "Bob" would have been kinda boring, and Pedersen's gotta be ground breaking in every way, including, apparently, naming his kid. But at least pick something that more than a handful of his classmates are ever going to be able to pronounce. Sheesh. What were they thinking?

Goofy name aside, CONGRATULATIONS Jamie and Eric.

Posted by SDA in SEA | September 3, 2007 12:43 PM

And the Pedersens were smart enough to give their kid their own last name. We gave our son his birthmom's last name -- first name was my boyfriend's late dad's name, middle name was the male version of my mother's name, and it just seemed right that we should give him his birthmom's last name. A name from all three of our families... sweet gesture, his birthmom was really touched.

But, man, try to get on airplanes with a kid -- particularly an infant or toddler -- when his last name is different than that of *both* of the men he's traveling with. We've had to carry DJ's birth certificate, adoption papers, and adoption decree with us everywhere we go.

And, oh, they're nice guys up there on the border crossing. We've had American passport control folks snort and scoff and roll their eyes when we hand them our papers. We've half expected 'em not to let us back in the country because our family offends their religious beliefs, a la those fundy pharmacists.

Posted by Dan Savage | September 3, 2007 12:54 PM

#5 - appreciate the post to the link.

Just read the suggested link - wow - first personal reality laced with good ethics, concern, and wisdom. Well written, articulate, powerful.

This guy might make a good Anglican priest.

Impressed. So easy to stay mired in the Craig ugly mud, vs. looking for meaning in a larger sense.

Posted by Angel | September 3, 2007 1:13 PM

Dan, I have two adopted children and my heart goes to you with the name problem.
I happen to live in a country where adoption is a taboo subject and looked down upon. Since our adoption is open it has caused some weird life moments.
Anyway, my daughters first name is
her birth mothers name and her middle name is my name.
Although it sounds like it has been a real pain what you did was very kind.

Posted by mj | September 3, 2007 1:43 PM

We'd do the same all over again, of course. But, man, talk about unintended consequences, no good deed going unpunished, etc.

Posted by Dan Savage | September 3, 2007 1:46 PM

If the rumour is true that he spent 250k on fertility treatments for the surrogate and all the other stuff that goes along with having a bio kid, then it's kinda weird and upsetting.

Why wouldn't Jamie Pedersen adopt a needy child here in his home state, rather then spend his fortune trying to clone himself out of state. An in state adoption would have only set him back a max of 20-25k and would have sent a great message to other wannabe parents in Washington about the possibilities of instate adoptions throught the foster system!

Posted by anonymous | September 3, 2007 2:26 PM


"I asked the couple how they decided to go with this method. Their answer is fairly straightforward: they wanted children that were biologically theirs."

--SGN interview - 17Aug07

Posted by DOIN' WHAT COMES PREFERABLY | September 3, 2007 2:48 PM

Sorry - @ 20 -

Posted by DOIN' WHAT COMES PREFERABLY | September 3, 2007 2:49 PM

#20 - above

Guess this is really the day of the catty birds -

If Jamie did not spend your money, what the hell is it you business? And have you taken you own advice and adopted one of those needy kids?

My earth mother sister did, three of them, and she is surely a saint. And I love being uncle.

But again, what the hell is it your business?

Posted by Marty | September 3, 2007 2:49 PM

@ 20..
I donīt think itīs fair to judge these guys. Adoption is very complicated and until you have been there and done that I would keep quiet. If you have adopted, great but still itīs not your money or place to judge.
Adoption has been an awesome experience for me but I have seen couples not click with there adopted children and in my opinion because they insisted on adopting they ended up ruining their adopted children's lives.
Adoption however noble and great it looks on the outside is a huge mistake for some couples.
Some people are better off with biological children because they do not have big enough hearts to understand their adopted children.
Genetics does have a lot to do with who we are.
My kids are AWESOME! They are not a lot like me and have giftings that their birth families have passed onto to them.
I love it but others might not have handled those differences very well.
Iīm a saint so it has gone great ; )

It was his money, time and effort and it is none of yours or anybody else's business.

Posted by mj | September 3, 2007 3:38 PM

No one would question a straight couple that wanted to have bio kids -- and spent shitloads of money to do so. Wait... people would question that, but in hushed tones. When a same-sex couple goes this route -- a male couple -- there's a lot of loud grumbling about needy kids they could have adopted, the excess babies that the straights can't or won't take care of.

It's a strange double standard -- particularly because it's not applied to lesbian moms. All they have to find is some spunk, and folks generally don't go, "Why did they have to do that? Why didn't they just adopt? Needy kids, etc."

Some gay men want their own bio kids. If they have the resources or lesbian pals that want to co-parent, they can and do. And who knows? Maybe Jamie and Eric are planning to adopt five babies after having a bio kid. But that's up to them.

Posted by Dan Savage | September 3, 2007 3:59 PM

I agree with Dan on this one. The two-men-and-a-baby story is (thankfully) yesterday's news, not a front-page sensation.

Posted by kk | September 3, 2007 6:23 PM

It's not like they went and wrote a whole fucking book about it.

Posted by oh mighty pen | September 3, 2007 7:20 PM

#26- to kk
Love the cover - love the story - and certainly what the gay legislators do has tons of news value. Ain't just any two men; they do print birth, marriage and birth announcements, at SGN, so send them one when you have a kid kk.

Seems, since Jamie and Eric took the pix, the SGN had the inside track, did not invade any privacy, did an interview twice on the topic, this is a follow up to an earlier story several weeks ago, and it is a charming picture. Cheers.

Sent a copy to my mom on Sat. She really likes babies.

And, kudos to Jamie and Eric for sharing ... and one more time ... Congratulations!!!! (Groom him to think he can be president)

My grandpa was from Norway and Tryvge is and outstanding male name, he will be Trig - a whole world of Bob's is so boring, and kinda small town

Posted by another rudy | September 3, 2007 7:36 PM

Dan, it's alright, let SGN gush about Jamie's new kid. Yeah, perhaps they're pouring it on a bit thick, but I think it's sweet.

And yes, it should have pushed Larry "wide stance" Craig off the front page. It's a nice neighborhood story, they should leave the Craig story to you and CNN.

Posted by Sean | September 3, 2007 7:47 PM

Dan, Dan, Dan... When, oh when, will you cease the attacks on the SGN for their articles and points of view? It's getting further and further past annoying to constantly read your attacks and field your ignorant self-important rantings.

Just because you don't have the balls to print articles of a positive nature doesn't make you a controversial journalist. Sadly, it just makes you an even bigger Ass&*(!

Posted by Disappointed in Dan | September 3, 2007 7:55 PM

Then... stop... reading... Dan's... blog...

Posted by EXTC | September 3, 2007 9:03 PM

#29 - Sean

Hey - I just can't believe you are so not informed. SGN ran the longest Craig story in town, started on the FRONT page.

Get a grip, by the middle of the week it was common perception he was going to resign, which he did, on Sat. am.

By the way, just for the record, Dan did a great job on CNN, except for the, not me, I am not a player/cruiser line. Does it surprise anyone the guy who is a sex focused syndicated writer, who writes and sells books, and lectures for money - Dan - emerges as an expert for a sexually explicit story? Good choice for CNN and he did a good job.

ALL the posters here have missed something. My very close friend and a remarkable woman, Rev. Gwen Hall died a week ago, and that most important story of death is also on the front page. Late Thr. as production closed, I decided the juxtaposition of life and death was OK, putting life/birth above the fold and in victory type size and approved the layout.

George Bakan, SGN publisher/ senior editor

Posted by George Bakan | September 3, 2007 9:05 PM

I didn't have any problem with the story in the SGN itself. What I DID have a problem with was the huge number of spelling and grammatical errors in the article. Misplaced apostrophes all over the place ('Pedersen's' is completely incorrect when it is just a plural. This happened all through the article) Also, I suspect 'adjust waiting room' was supposed to be 'adjunct waiting room.' I shouldn't be surprised, though, since the SGN has a rich history of sloppy editing, bad writing and embarrassing layout mistakes.

As for the comment about a child being raised by two fathers: I have known several children who were raised by same-sex parents. These kids are incredibly well-adjusted, intelligent, inquisitive and very much aware of who they are. I don't know any household that raises their kids in a vacuum. I highly doubt that the Pedersens (SGN take note: a simple plural does not need an apostrophe) have any sort of 'No Girls Allowed' policy in their treehouse. Numerous recent studies have shown that children who are raised by a set of same-sex parents are every bit as well-adjusted as kids from more traditional families. Not surprisingly, the kids from same-sex parent households generally are more accepting of all kinds of social situations, and are generally more apt to sexually experiment on both/either sides of the orientation fence. Other than that, they are normal, happy, slightly smarter-than-average kids.

About the name Trygve: kids will make fun of any name possible, regardless of whether it's a common name or not. 'Tryg' sounds like a great diminutive. I knew a kid in high school whose given name was 'Eck.' He was well-liked and respected and, to my memory at least, didn't seem to suffer from more name-fun-making than any other kid. I would think an unusual name would be more of a boon than a common name. How many new Bobs do we need in this world? Not enough Trygs around, if you ask me.

I raise three cheers to Jaimie, Eric and Tryg. A loving family is a loving family. End of story.

Posted by ELB Seattle | September 3, 2007 9:16 PM

@ 29 - Good on you, George. In the long run we won't get into heaven (or hell) because of the apostrophical grammar queens. And while me are one himself, at least your Second Coming typeface headline spelled "IT'S" correctly - and shit, that's [that is] what it's (it is) all about.

PS to Jamie & Eric: your first grammatical lesson for Tryg should be about controlling his vowels: A E I O U - and sometimes Y as in sync, sylvan, sylph and syph...

Posted by KY. COL. of TRUTH | September 3, 2007 9:49 PM

The print version of the story in SGN does NOT have those mistakes.

Sorry ELB, you read it online I bet. And my theory is that a less than final draft was posted, with the final edit in print. My print copy has correct grammar and the word adjacent ..

I have worked at small papers and with a staff of six or eight, well, honey, carp at the New York Times.

Posted by Freddy | September 3, 2007 10:01 PM

A nit: "9.9 out of 10 during the Apgar check"?!? Jesus Fucking Christ, yuppies (gay or straight) will quantize and then compete about any fucking thing related to their kids.

Back in the day (6+ years ago) kids just got solid Apgar scores (9, 8, 7, etc.) There were five categories, with scores of 0-1-2 in each (breathing barely=0, breathing ok=1, breathing great=2, etc). It was a quick way to judge overall distress or lack thereof. My daughter get a 9 because C-section kids take a while to get their lungs cleared out (no vaginal squeezing) and my son got an 8- he was a month early and had some (non-permanent) issues.

But JFC, they each had two arms, two legs and one head, and as far as I was concerned they were the most beautiful people on the planet (still are.) I could give a rats ass about 9.9 vs 9.7 vs 9.3.

I can't wait for the bumper sticker:

My Newborn Has The Highest Apgar Score at Silver Spoon Daycare

Posted by Big Sven | September 4, 2007 12:37 AM

you have nits - here is some nats for you:

Vaginal squeezing should be measured and reported, and my guess is you are more expert on that topic than all the gay men on Slog.

Two, few of us have ever had kids, lived through having kids, been in the labor room while wife is having kids - and scores for newborns is of considerable interest. Just saying the kid is OK is far less interesting

There is not shred of competition, just relief that all is well, the kid is normal, functional well, and scores just FINE, FINE, FINE. You assign some motive that is just silly.

Big Yahoo is not big on insight. Get a score card for that vaginal squeezing, and let gay men slowly become as jaded as you about birthing ... at the outcome end.

In a less tolerant mood I might suggest you are an ass.

I forgot, I have some unexpected baby experience, I screwed an Italian pediatrician several times a night for a few years, and he was the best in his field. And yes, it was sorta a contest -- yum, yum, yum.

Posted by Marty | September 4, 2007 1:56 AM

This is news, why? Who are these people, and when is it ever front-page news that they have had a baby?

Posted by brappy | September 4, 2007 2:12 AM

Above - use google, you are obviously not from Seattle, and if you are, brand new ... good news, could be called soft news, and one needs to allow for three hard news stories on the same front page. Good balance, I think. Great photo.

Posted by lee wong | September 4, 2007 3:19 AM

After reading this - there is even a better rumor.

Overheard last night at Purr, using the very latest technology, one of the dads will do breast feeding.

Is it possible? What does that do to your manly nipples? Can someone confirm from the field of medicine.

Posted by MUST STAY SECRET | September 4, 2007 5:16 AM

The kid's going to becom a republican just to get back at them for naming him that. Honestly people, use some fucking common sense -- this *isn't* Norway, even in Ballard....

Posted by GoodGrief | September 4, 2007 8:28 AM

So the kid should be named Good Grief - as aimprovement????

Posted by Jean Claude Lafrance | September 4, 2007 8:34 AM

I heard the kid was just named junior partner at Preston, Gates & Ellis.

Posted by DOUG. | September 4, 2007 9:11 AM

Dan (at #25)-

Loved your books, and my husband and I are waiting for an international adoption referral now. But believe me, even as straight married folks, we have PLENTY of friends, relatives, aquaintances and near-strangers who have felt free to comment on and criticize all aspects of our decision. We've been asked how long we tried, if we "did it right," what fertility treatments we tried, how long, how much money we spent, why we aren't adopting domestically/an older child/from some other country/from some other agency/from this single mother they know, how much are we "paying for the baby," plus, don't we think we're too old/poor/set in our ways to bring a child into the house? Not to mention my godmother(!) telling my mother at a family event that "God sends babies to the women he knows will be good mothers."

Anyway, it's still intrusive and wrong, but it doesn't just happen to gay men.

Posted by kuzibah | September 4, 2007 12:22 PM

@39 - I'm from Seattle. I grew up here. Also, why is it news that the state representative for my district had a baby?

Posted by brappy | September 4, 2007 12:45 PM

Marty, I'm sorry that I interjected something about childbirth and the validity of 1% Apgar discretization into a story about... childbirth. I now realize that the Slog is here to bolster gay male self-esteem, not to discuss the news.

I deeply regret my error. Yay for little Trygve! Yay for his 9.92 Apgar! Good thing it wasn't a 9.83- then we'd have to send him back!

Posted by Big Sven | September 4, 2007 1:19 PM

@44 Oh Brother I had that said to me so many times, God Gives babies to those who should have them!!!!
My own sister in law said that to me.

Posted by mj | September 4, 2007 1:59 PM

EXTC @31,

I read Dan's blog because it is important to know what the enemy is up to. If you're so in love with his rants, why don't you just grab the lube and keep reading?

Posted by Disappointed in Dan | September 4, 2007 2:28 PM

EXTC @31,

I read Dan's blog because it is important to know what the enemy is up to. If you're so in love with his rants, why don't you just grab the lube and keep reading?

Posted by Disappointed in Dan | September 4, 2007 2:28 PM

Wow, some of the spite and bitterness here is shocking.

I'm amazed at the level of the heterosexism and anti-male gender bias that I see coming from gay men.

When was the last time anyone complained about straight people undergoing expensive fertility treatment to have a biological child?

When was the last time you heard someone chastize a lesbian couple for having a biological child?

And to the gay man who feels sorry for the child because he won't have an ever-present mother, do you have the same sympathy for about 50+% of children in America who don't live with their biological father and who often grow up with no male figure in the house? If you do, do you vocalize your concern as you have here?

Frankly, I think a child born to a gay male couple probably has a better chance of being exposed to, and even surrounded by, positive female role models than a child born to a single mother has of being exposed to, or even surrounded by, positive male role models.

Perhaps I've missed the point. Perhaps it's just that people don't believe that fathers, and male role models, are important in the life of a child.

I've always been very curious about what makes gay men, who are so sensitive to gender biases against women, so oblivious to and even support of gender biases against men.

I and my husband are the proud father's of my happy, well-adjusted, biological son. I am also the director of a support group for Single, Divorced and/or Gay fathers. Maybe that makes me a bit sensitive to some of the comments here but I think if more people were exposed to the stories that I hear on a weekly basis they might have a different perspective on sexism, heterosexism, gender biases and fatherhood in American society and culture today. It certainly isn't the "man's world" out there that you've always heard about.

Posted by Zeke | September 5, 2007 8:18 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).