Zepp slept with ‘it’ and the matter was resolved.
You could theoretically get a male if you have an XX female abherrantly turn on MIF during development for some reason.
Speaking of this thread, Sin would make a totally hot MtF transsexual. I’d bone her. Even pre-op. Oh, yeah!
Apparently whatever Zep has is contagious.
I’ve always considered that personal choice was the most important indicator for gender, in regards to how they should be treated in society and such. It might be just because I spend a lot of time with transgendered people, but if someone born male was living as a woman, I would consider the person a woman.
In regards to something such as athletics, however, I would think that a test for the xx or xy chromasomes would be the deciding factor. A man living as a woman would have the greater upper-body strength of a male, and would have an unfair advantage in a competition in which this strength was used, for example.
For cases in which there is xxy, or other abnormalities that would cause ambiguous gender, I would think that the ‘main’ gender (do they have boobs and a vagina?) would be a deciding factor, because they need to pick a gender to use, and the person would most fit into the category of ‘woman’.
Of course, Im not a scientist. There may be tests that are available that can narrow down gender further, and make the decision. To me, gender is whatevs. I feel bad for this chick? getting embarassed publicly.
Calm down and relax.
She’s not a dude. She just LOOKS kinda like a dude because she’s taking steroids like every other track runner.
For general purposes, I would think most people use external genitalia for reference. But you get into that weird shit, and shit gets complicated…
But for the most part, I do kinda agree with what Kasey’s saying. I mean, if they’ve grown up a woman (but really a man), I’d probably say they’re a woman regardless.
Anyways, it’s hard for me to answer Sin’s question with just one answer, since the situation usually commands something different for each case. But I guess we just can’t call them an “it”, can we?
Can “men that grew up as women” have children? From what I understand of what Sin said, they develop female sexual organs. Do they also develop eggs and whatnot? Or would they be the equivalent of a barren woman?
If not, I would say chromosomes ultimately determine gender. Sure barren natural women exist (get an AIDS test, Thompson, because your wife’s a dude, faggot), but they have the natural genetics to make them female. For all his faults, I think Mr. Garrison was mostly right about the whole “if you can’t have babies, you’re a dude” definition of being a woman. Except for the whole calling barren women men part.
Only through blood or bodily fluids :mwahaha:
As we develop knowledge more, it becomes more and more apparent that everything we previously neatly categorized is either riddled with exceptions, or is actually a gradient, sometimes in multiple dimensions.
Its amazing how a thread can go from Girls are Bi to Sin makes men Bi.
.
984: Men that grew up as women don’t have a uterus or ovaries. At most, they have a shallow vagina-like opening and the penis/clitoris doesn’t close around the urethra. The testes don’t descend into the unfused labio-scrotal folds, prompting a risk of cancer. As Klez mentioned, there is a gradient to this phenomenon where some people are overtly female in appearance and others are…well… less.
You could be XY and develop female if MIF is mutated, for example. I think the easiest solution is to have a hybrid definition. Either the person is born with the female genital tract or that person has the chromosome set if the genital tract is unreliable. Its easy to see what tract is present by doing an ultrasound: you look for the ovaries, the uterus and the vagina (note that I don’t mention anything about a penis). If you want to be extra safe with the ovaries, you biopsy and look under a microscope.
I think the big problem has to do with the reliance on external physical cues to define male and female when these are exactly what makes the identification so controversial. Its a bit more difficult to look for what’s on the insideof an underdeveloped genital tract, but it goes around the panoply of genetic and molecular exceptions I can pull out of my ass. Testes male, ovaries / uterus female. It would only be under extreme circumstances that we would rely on a genetic definition to define gender.
To clarify, I’m not saying the athlete in question should be considered a man based on her DNA. I believe in people finding their own self-definitions in Life, and if you think you’re a woman, you’re one regardless of your body. Though of course you still have to deal with problems like this. It would not be fair for someone with the physique of a man to compete in a woman’s sport. That is what should be determined here. However my sense of cynicism tells me that the Sports Authorities see this as a big embarrassment that they would want to get rid of as fast as possible, fairness be damned. That’s why I expect them to go with the XY test, even if as Sin said it ultimately doesn’t affect her performance.
Except your posting (note: 100% bad)
Isn’t this what they made things like ‘Special Olympics’ for?
The Special Olympics is for mentally handicapped people. The Paralympics is for physically handicapped people. I wonder if there’s a Special Paralympics.
If you mean Santhi Soundarajan’s saga back in 2006, well, now Santhi is back in the news thanks to Semenya’s sequel. Interestingly enough, both were specialized in the same track distance (800 meters).
more like ur mom amirite
If they were to go all the way and examine her gonads, how invasive would this procedure be? I imagine neither she or he coach would consent to it if it affected her ability to compete.
Ultrasound is not invasive. Biopsy is minimally invasive.