"Sabrina Kilian" <ski### [at] vtedu> wrote in message 
news:4aa7eb4a$1@news.povray.org...
> Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
>
> Since that sounds mostly physiological and not genetic, children would
> just be a matter of having the plumbing correct. I would not even dare
> to speculate if that were the case, since any physical disturbance could
> have caused more massive internal disorders. I am glad to hear the
> gentleman is grown up and happy.

Well, that's my understanding of the issue.  The person in question said it 
was some sort of a chromosomal problem, so it could be more complex, but he 
shows no signs (otherwise) of having any problems.  My wife used to change 
"her" diapers as a baby.  At this point, he is a nice looking young man in 
his early twenties.  But he's keeping his former life a secret, probably 
because most people can't understand it.

> If the families don't get the blame, the doctors will. Because most
> people want to believe gender is as simple as XX or XY. No Klinefelter,
> no 49,XXXXX, no mosaic genetic structures, no AIS at all. But, the most
> common genetic disorders, like 47,XYY don't present with obvious changes
> to phenotype.

At this point in my understanding, I do think it's as simple as XX/XY except 
in the cases of 49,XXXXX etc.  What I mean is that if you are born XY, then 
in my mind, you are male, and if XX, female, regardless of outward 
appearance.  From what I have heard in this situation, the higher ranking 
members of their church held the opposite argument: if you're born with a 
vagina, you're female. As far as "Should you be allowed to compete as female 
if you are XY?"  I would say "No."  And similarly for XX.  In other, very 
rare cases, things get fuzzy.  If you are a male/female chymera, for 
example, I would have no idea where you should compete.

> I hate to be a downer on this, but it could be that parents know and she
> doesn't. See: John/Joan case by Doctor Money.
>
> And then, after you as either intrigued or sick to your stomach that he
> got away with that and caused reassignment surgeries to be common for
> any major birth defect over the next 30 years, read up on a guy named
> David Reimer, the child in the John/Joan study.

Yep.  That's not the first time I've heard of that type of situation. Being 
a fan of the Discovery Channel, I watched one case where a little "boy" was 
born with one testicle, along with female organs.  The parents wanted to 
raise him as a boy (he was XY), but the doctor decided that he knew best, 
and removed the boy's one remaining testicle, making him outwardly female. 
Of course, the parents are suing, as they should in this case.

The case of David Reimer is very sad, if not simply disturbing.  Anyone 
familiar with the "Milgram experiment" can understand how dangerous it can 
be for us to put our blind trust in anyone.

Post a reply to this message