What was her surgeon's name, Dr. Josef Rudolf Mengele?

BEANATHOME :I like the way that you presented your point of view and I agree that the individual should have the right to determine their own gender identification. However, 18 years of harassment and ridicule seems like a harsh and cruel existence. Perhaps if the predominant sexuality could be determined prior to puberty( by age 5 or 6 does the child more male or female tendencies ) then the parents could make an objective decision to proceed with an operation or wait until the child is mature enough to make their own decision.

Sex Identity is set neurologically, by the anatomy of the lymbic nucleus (sorry, even THAT is an over-simplification).

Basically, there are boy brains, girl brains, in-between brains, it's a spectrum.

Boy body + boy brain = usual guy.

Girl body + girl brain = usual gal.

Intersex body + boy brain = Intersex male.

Intersex body + girl brain = Intersex female (as here)

Boy body + Intersex brain = usual guy (may be a bit more sensitive than most)

Girl body + Intersex brain = usual gal (may be a bit butch)

Boy body + Girl brain = Transsexual gal

Girl body + Boy brain = Transsexual guy (think Chaz Bono)

Intersex body + Intersex brain = Intersex person.

Performing surgery to masculinise the body of a girl is a bad idea. Same with performing surgery to feminise the body of a boy. You end up with (effective) transsexuality one time in three.

As has been pointed out by other commenters, "hermaphrodite" is deprecated when talking about people with one or another Intersex variation.

The way that the N-word is deprecated when talking about African-Americans, if you get my drift.

For one thing, only a very small proportion of Intersex variations (about 1%) involve the presence of both ovarian and testicular tissue, so it's incorrect on technical grounds.

It astounds me that the parent(s) of this particular lady did not notice that she was biologically female. Even if she has an enlarged clitoris, wouldn't the parents notice if she has a vagina, breasts, wider hips? By puberty the differences between male and female are more pronounced in other ways as well, less body hair, no beard, etc. How can a family overlook this?

Socially, I think with a child of ambiguous sex/gender, the family needs to choose a neutral name (like Chris, Jamie, Robin), or a name that is easily converted (e.g. Paul, Paula). Then they should watch the child's behaviour and temporarily assign a gender which seems most fitting. There are so many situations in school where the child needs to join a group of the same gender (Brownies/Scouts, gym classes, etc.). (For whatever reason, society seems to be more accepting of a 'tomboy' girl than an 'sissy' boy). I think that the parents should enroll the child in a variety of activities and be flexible and accepting of the child's interests and social expression. And they need to be prepared that their child may choose to switch genders if they picked the wrong one, or experiment with both genders to see which fits best.

Hey, moderator, there are lots of great comments in the thread under 1.1, which is collapsed. Could you uncollapse the replies at least? At least some of them?

How about PERSON? Isn't PERSON enough? As gender differentiation fades in law and order,especially in those countries that consider themselves progressive, these are the future people. Those disparaging homosexuality should regard these people as God's work, that same God they trust to run the country and make life-critical decisions for all PEOPLE. Maybe He's speaking to us about sexuality, a secondary trait. First, we have hearts, and minds, and spirits, ALL of us. And God made us ALL. And those who would meddle and strike down the variants, are playing at being God, a famous vanity before a famous fall. Like they used to say in the margarine ad; "It isn't nice to fool Mother Nature!"

Estimated 80, 000? In a country the size of Germany? Sorry, I don't buy it. That's enough to be considered an epidemic, not just an anomaly.

If you can't figure out which they are, there's an easy solution, ask me. That person in the photo... that's a man.

Y'all aught to sit back with a big fatty, place it between your lips, inhale deeply, ( don't forget to light it ) hold your breath for a few seconds, exhale, repeat if necessary, and everything will seem much better

More compassion and understanding comments on this story than on any

other of the stories(Trevor,Muslim killed in U.S,Afghanistan massacre,pope)

True ignorance abounds. If you dont know the difference between a hermaphrodite and a transexual you should not be posting. Most hermaphrodites dont have functioning sex organs by the way. So for those who say if it looks like a penis call it one, when in actuality it is something in between. Most of these cases cant be determined by DNA because that is where the problem started XXY or XXX; could be male, female, a little of both, all sterile. These people simply dont want them jumping the gun at birth anymore, and possibly cutting off your penis. or remove ovaries and the other parts. I think most men on here could agree that that would be quite a horrible thing to happen at such a young age. So imagine yourself without a penis because some doctor thought you should be a girl. Do you get it now? That is what they are arguing, not more rights; just more time to determine the sex.

In cattle breeding there are heifers called freemartins. It happens when twin calves are born one male and one female. In cows pregnant with twins, the placentas get connected and trade DNA and hormones back and forth. If they're the same sex, it doesn't matter. If not, the heifer will usually(about 90%)have extremely small sex organs, or even some male organs inside. She will not come into heat or breed and will act "bully". A vet can find it or else just wait until puberty, about 6 months to see if she comes into heat. The bulls from these pairs are not kept for breeding and are made into steers. This does not happen with human twins. But the hermaphrodites/intersex have a similar condition due to genes or homones in the womb. It's part of nature. Like Big John said, these people don't want extra rights, just the right to be themselves.

this isnt a herm but a woman with a freakishly large clit.

At least if you tell one of these hermaphrodites to go feck themselves, they could.

The typical approach by another special interest group. They are right, everyone else is wrong. They are special, you don't count. Demand privileges under the guise of equality. They are normal, everyone else is not. And there is no God and no natural law. And, finally, they get to interpret what is right and what is wrong for everyone else.

WHY LAWS
MANDATING MARRIAGE BETWEEN A “MAN” AND A “WOMAN” ARE SCIENTIFICALLY ABSURD

by
Daniel Smith, RN, Doctoral Student

There is a current trend for states to mandate marriage laws
stipulating that a marriage will only be legally recognized between a “man and
a woman” which prohibits “same-sex” marriage. This also should be more
correctly referred to as same-gender marriage,
not same sex. The term “sex” is used incorrectly, and additionally, is an
emotionally inflammatory or salacious term, at least to some members of the far
right.

First, if we are going to enact laws based on a biological basis, we should use precise
biological terms: we should use “male” and “female,” not “man” and “woman,”
since these are sociological terms, not biological ones. Also, if we are going to enact a law at all,
it should be agreed that any law, to be fair, should be applied to all adult members
of the population equally; to not do so results in discrimination.

The problem with a law stipulating marriage as that between
a “male” and a “female” is: if you are going to be so specific as to stipulate
the requirements of whom might enter into a contract of this type (marriage
contract), or engage in this legal activity, then those who favor such a law with such specific
requirements, should be required to precisely define the terms, “male” and
“female” such that there is no uncertainty of who is qualified, and who is
not, to enter into said marriage contract.
Many people would think this absurd: everyone knows the difference
between a male and a female. Many, if
not most, people assume, incorrectly,
that everyone, all humans, are either one, or the other. They take for granted that all persons
identified by the public as male, can easily be identified by physical factors
common to all males, and the same
regarding females. Things are not so cut
and dried biologically. Unfortunately,
it is almost impossible to state mental, physical, and/or even genetic
factors to define what it is to be a “male” or to be a “female” such that all humans will either be one
or the other; there will always be a sizeable number of humans that have
physical and/or genetic attributes that will prevent them from being definitively
labeled as either male or female. Additionally, there are thousands of persons
who have physical features that would enable them to be placed in both male and female categories. For such a specific law to be enforceable, one
must be able to place all humans in one, and only one,
category: either definitely male or female, with no duplication or overlap.

If one cannot
precisely define what it is exactly which
would enable one to identify a given person as a male or female, and can be
applied to every human equally, then
the required terms to the marriage contract, i.e., male and a female, if unable
to be defined, are too vague for the law to be validated. That law must be withdrawn as being too vague
to be enforced, as the genders identified in the law cannot be undeniably
identified and classified. If you don’t
know what you’re looking for, how you know if you’ve found it?

The terms, “male” and “female” are nouns, or terms, not
descriptions. A law must be explicit on the meaning or descriptions of terms in
order for a law to be verified or enforced. For example, when you use a term
that you cannot define, it is an unknown variable. In math, this is represented
usually by a letter, such as “X” or “Z”. We can evaluate the law in a
mathematical way. In order for someone to practice as a doctor in our society
(or lawyer, or any other profession), we require: Person + professional degree + pass boards
and other required training=ability to practice in profession. There are, however, other descriptions that
stipulate the required training and scores, etc., such that we know the person
in question is qualified or eligible to practice in that profession. The
required courses and other qualifications are elaborately spelled out in
detail, so there is NO unknown variable. You know without a question, that the
person involved has met every qualification required by society, to legally
engage in that activity.

Regarding the current laws mandating that marriage is
between a “male” and a “female” would, currently, look like: X + Z = marriage. These are represented by letters, as the
terms, “male” and “female”, not having been specifically defined, are unknown.
You are unaware of what each term comprises, or what the exact requirements and
qualifications are. We do NOT know that
each person represented by each term is qualified to engage in that activity. There must be a way to verify eligibility,
and you cannot do that, if you cannot define what the eligibility actually
comprises. This, in my opinion, makes
the law legally too vague to be valid or even constitutional.

Biologically, there are a few ways to discern the differences
between a male and a female.

1) mental differences

2) physical differences

3) genetic differences

For the law to be valid, and verifiable, one should be able
to use one of these attributes to definitively classify any given individual as
either male or female. If you cannot classify every adult as either
male or female by using valid scientific criteria instead of religious doctrine,
those laws are too vague and should be
invalidated on the grounds that they discriminate against tens of thousands of
people.

Before I address
these criteria to explore why each one cannot
(biologically) be used to classify each human, it should be noted that most humans DO fit completely into one
classification or the other. They are CLEARLY male or female. The concern here is that there is a significant
portion of society which cannot be clearly defined as male OR female. Some are neither, some could be considered
both. Based on those facts, this law
must be found invalid, as it discriminates against thousands of people. If the law is strict, and is enforced as is
currently written this group of individuals would never be allowed to marry. Let’s discuss each category.

1) Mental differences: While probably most people would agree that
there are some mental differences between males and females, it would be absurd
to classify a person as “male” or “female” by their mental status. Everyone knows men who appear feminine, and
women who are masculine, and everything in between. Clearly, mental differences CANNOT be used to
classify a person as male or female for the purposes of marriage.

2) Physical
differences: Probably most people would say
THIS is the area that would make it easy to tell the difference between a male
and a female—perhaps not. Let us look at each item individually.

A) Presence
or absence of breasts: Traditionally, a
female is known (or assumed) to have breasts
and a vagina. If these are used as
criteria, then the presence of these organs would
define the person as a female, and the absence, rules the person OUT as a
female. It is obvious that this
cannot be used as defining a person as a female. This narrowed view is very sexist—it would define a
woman as being comprised of only breasts and a vagina. What does it mean to have “breasts?” All
humans have breasts. It is only a matter of size. Would you, then,
define a woman as having larger breasts than a man? Clearly, as we all have seen, this cannot be true. It might be true for some¸ but not ALL. If it does not apply to ALL, it cannot be
used as a defining criterion. We have all seen women
who have minimally developed breasts. We
have all seen obese males with very large
and pendulous breasts, as well as everyone in between. One might argue, “…a woman’s breast, regardless of size, is different than a
man’s, since it can produce milk.” Scientific fact is that a man’s breast can
produce milk if sufficiently stimulated.
The presence or absence of breasts CANNOT be used as criteria to classify a human as male or female, as it applies to both.

B) Presence
or absence of a vagina/Presence or absence of a penis/Presence or absence of a scrotum/testicles: Well,
then, regardless of breasts, a female has a vagina, and a male has a penis and a scrotum with
testicles. This limited definition
makes it easy to invalidate it as scientific
criteria.

If you define a female as having
breasts and a vagina, then what do you call her if she has one of those elements removed, as in
cancer? By using this anatomical definition, she would no longer be
considered a female, nor could she be considered a male. Under those limitations she would not legally be
allowed to marry--and IF already married would she be compelled to get divorce, or would the marriage be
nullified? And the same for a male;
if his penis or scrotum or testicles removed due to trauma, or cancer, is he no
longer a male? If you say he IS still a male, then obviously the
presence (or absence) or these organs make
do difference, and thus cannot be used
as criteria.

3)
Genetic differences: Well, then, a person, in order to be a
female, needs to be at least BORN with breasts and a vagina, and a male must be
BORN with a penis and testicles, in order to be gender classified. Biologically, these cannot be used as criteria.
Some
people are born with vaginas; some are born with penises. But some are not born
with either, and some are born with both, and others are born with organs that
are so unformed you cannot tell what they
are. So how do we classify these others? As a result of genetic problems, many
children are born with what are termed, “ambiguous genitalia,” meaning one
cannot tell by looking if they are male or female. Sometimes a child is born
with what appears to be male genitalia on the outside, but mostly female organs
on the inside, or vice-versa.

How would we classify these individuals? Male or female? Who
would have the right to arbitrarily assign a gender to a person who has the
anatomical attributes of both or none? A number of terms have been used to classify
these individuals: hermaphrodites (those who have both male and female genitalia);
neuters (those who have neither); and the more current term: intersex persons,
as that term encompasses all physical sexual abnormalities.

Under the current law, a person with some of these physical
abnormalities would not be able to get
married at all, since that person cannot be classified as male or female. Some
might think: These persons are so few in
number; it really is not a factor that needs to be considered. False. These individuals comprise a much larger
segment of the population than most people think. According to the CDC, at
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/births.htm; the number of births in the US in
2009 (last year stats are available) was 4,130,665. According
to the web site, Intersex Society of North America,
http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency, the following information is shown:

“Here’s what we do know: If you ask experts at medical
centers how often a child is born so noticeably atypical in terms of genitalia
that a specialist in sex differentiation is called in, the number comes out to
about 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births. But a lot more people than that are born
with subtler forms of sex anatomy variations, some of which won’t show up until
later in life.

Below we provide a summary of statistics drawn from an article by
Brown University researcher Anne Fausto-Sterling.² The basis for that article was an extensive
review of the medical literature from 1955 to 1998 aimed at producing numeric
estimates for the frequency of sex variations. Note that the frequency of some
of these conditions, such as congenital adrenal hyperplasia, differs for
different populations. These statistics are approximations.

Not
XX and not XY

one
in 1,666 births

Klinefelter
(XXY)

one
in 1,000 births

Androgen
insensitivity syndrome

one
in 13,000 births

Partial
androgen insensitivity syndrome

one
in 130,000 births

Classical
congenital adrenal hyperplasia

one
in 13,000 births

Late
onset adrenal hyperplasia

one
in 66 individuals

Vaginal
agenesis

one
in 6,000 births

Ovotestes

one
in 83,000 births

Idiopathic
(no discernible medical cause)

one
in 110,000 births

Iatrogenic
(caused by medical treatment, for instance progestin administered to pregnant
mother)

no
estimate

5
alpha reductase deficiency

no
estimate

Mixed
gonadal dysgenesis

no
estimate

Complete
gonadal dysgenesis

one
in 150,000 births

Hypospadias
(urethral opening in perineum or along penile shaft)

one
in 2,000 births

Hypospadias
(urethral opening between corona and tip of glans penis)

one
in 770 births

Total
number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female

one
in 100 births

Total
number of people receiving surgery to “normalize” genital appearance

one
or two in 1,000 births

¹ Dreger, Alice Domurat. 1998. Ambiguous Sex—or Ambivalent Medicine? Ethical Issues in the Treatment of
Intersexuality. Hastings Center Report, 28, 3: 24-35.

² Blackless, Melanie, Anthony Charuvastra, Amanda Derryck, Anne
Fausto-Sterling, Karl Lauzanne, and Ellen Lee. 2000. How sexually dimorphic are we? Review and synthesis. American
Journal of Human Biology 12:151-166.”

If you use the lesser estimate, 1 in 2000 births have such
ambiguous genitalia that an expert needs to be called in, that amounts to
almost 2,100 births a year in the United States. This is a lot of people who
cannot be determined to be male or female. In 10 years that is almost 21,000
persons.

This approximation only deals with external genitalia; if you
include all of the others shown in the table, who might have a mixture of
physical characteristics of both male and female, such as Kleinfelter “males”
or Turner “females”, the numbers are much higher. Kleinfelter males (who
frequently have both male and female physical characteristics) are estimated at
between 1 in every 1000, to 1 in every 2000 births in the US; this would be an
additional 1000-2100 births a year to the above estimates; Turner females are
estimated at 1 in every 5000 births, or another almost 1000 births a year (sex
chromosome abnormalities will be discussed below).

Some infants, who would otherwise be known as a female, are born
with fused labia, so that it appears as a scrotum--they do not have a vagina. There
are almost endless variations on the theme for both male and female children. Since
there are thousands of genital malformations and abnormalities every year in
the US (and all over the world) the presence or absence of any particular
genital configuration cannot be used as a criteria for classifying any given
person as male or female.

A woman can bear a
child or has a uterus, so she can bear a child. Not necessarily. There are many people that most would
classify as a “female” who do not have, nor were born with, a uterus. Sometimes
what would have been a uterus is merely a streak of connective tissue. The same
would apply to the presence, or absence, of ovaries. The
ability of being able to bear a child cannot be used as criteria, because many
normal women are unable to bear children for a variety of reasons, whether or
not they have, or have had, a uterus (or the presence or absence of ovaries).

Ok then, clearly the
only definitive way to tell a “female” from a “male” is in the genes: a female
has 2 “X” chromosomes, and a “male” has one “X” and one “Y”. If this is
how the legal definition will ultimately be framed to clearly
distinguish between “males” and “females”, then thousands and thousands of
people will not be able to get married because they do not fall into either one
of those definitions.

As many people know, the “sex chromosomes” are those which
determine gender. Yes, the presence of two X chromosomes will determine a
female, and one X and one Y will determine a male; but there are thousands of
people who have sex chromosomes in other
arrangements. Everyone must have at
least ONE X; to not have one is incompatible with life. (Merck Manual, 2012). How do we classify a person who only has ONE
X (X,O) and nothing else? What about a
person who has XXY? A person who has XYY? A person who has XXYY? A person who
has XXX, or XXXX, or XXXXXXY? Or XYYYYYY?

There are thousands of people who have a genetic
configuration other than that of a “typical” male or female. If you used this
as criteria for “marriageability”, thousands would never be able to ever be
legally married. Genetic configuration
cannot be used as criteria for determining the differences between a male and
female because it would discriminate against thousands of adults.

In summary, one cannot use mental differences to classify a
person as male or female; one cannot use the presence or absence of external
genitalia or breasts to classify a person as male or female; and one cannot use
the genetic configuration of an individual to classify that person as male or
female, because in all of the above situations, there are thousands who will
not fit into either or both classifications.

If you cannot use any of the above as a sure-fire way to
classify ALL humans as EITHER male or female, how are you going to define what it is, to BE a male or a female, such
that all persons are either one or the other, but not both, nor neither? If
you CANNOT definitively define what it is
to be male or to be female, how can you create or uphold a law stipulating
these characteristics as a requirement to complete or engage in the contract
(marriage)?

Religiously, it might be desirable to classify everyone as
either a male or female, but biologically it is nearly impossible. Many
thousands are partially both, or neither.

References

Beers, M.H., Porter, R.S., Jones, T.V., Kaplan, J.L.,
Berkwits, M.B., The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy (2012); Merck and
Co., Inc.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Births and Natality, (2012), author
unknown

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/births.htm;
retrieved from the internet on May 9,2012

The Intersex Society of North America, How Common is Intersex?(2012); retrieved from the Internet on May 9, 2012 http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency