Timothy Birdnow

On Facebook I'm in an interesting discussion about the true gender-benders and the current business about them in women's sports.

John Lees argues:

Another example of why this XY woman issue is not as simple as people imagine.
People will say that XY is biologically a man.
The same people would also say that a man can not get pregnant.
BUT - here is an account of a mother with XY genes who naturally gave birth to a daughter, also with XY genes.
So, both of those claims can not be simulatenously true:

I reply:

Perhaps John but there are people born with vegistial tails too and they aren't necessarily Baboons. I would dare say most of them aren't. Or those with webbed feet are not cetaceans.

John responds:
My point is - would you tell the mother (and daughter) that they are both men, and should henceforth be regarded as such?

I reply:

What do you mean by me telling them that? Me personally or society? If we are to be factual and honest then certainly a medical doctor should tell them precisely that. Tact would prevent me or the average person from saying it, but that also doesn't necessarily mean it is so.

John, from a strictly medical standpoint, this paper is looking at an individual with mosaicism. Mosaicism is not a sex-linked syndrome like Morris syndrome, Swyer syndrome, or Klinefelter syndrome, which are being bantered around.

In fact, there have been many reported successful pregnancies with such individuals. What is remarkable about this case is that it is rare for a mother with mosaicism to give birth to a daughter with mosaicism. In this case, and the paper does not point it out, the type of mosaicism the mother has is a germline mosaicism, rather than somatic mosaicism, meaning that the sex organs of the individual have a female genotype whereas other parts of her body express a male genotype. According to the paper, 80% of the cells in her body are of the male genotype, whereas 20% are female, including her reproductive organs. So, technically, the individuals reproductive organs are not genetically male. They are decidedly female. There is a third type of mosaicism called chimerism (sometimes called twin-twin mosaicism), which has a very different cause with similar outcomes for the individual.

While I see this as a very different case to what everyone is discussing regarding Imane Khelif. There is no evidence that Khelif has any type of mosaicism. However, it does add one more disorder for people to discuss in context to Khelif.
3 · Like · More · Yesterday at 9:30 AM
John Lees
Lyle Hancock Sr. I'm no expert. I only present these complexities as a means of illustrating that in this area the conventional declarations of what it means to be an XY male or XX female lose their relevance.
Thanks for the clarification of the technical specifics.
Edited · 1 · Like · React · More · Yesterday at 9:38 AM
Lyle Hancock Sr.
John Lees Indeed. It is quite rare. Think of it as two different individuals inhabiting the same body, one being male, the other female in this case. I forgot to mention that people with Chimerism have also given birth to children. I'm sure you've heard of the case where a mother lost her child to child protective services because genetic testing determined she was not the mother. The tissue they tested was from the other twin sharing her body.

You probably already know that I retired from medical research in the field of Perinatology (high risk pregnancy) where we study a lot of disorders, both genetic and pathological in the developing fetus and mother, with the goal of helping the baby get born. I've seen a lot of "stuff."

Through my career, I've been keenly aware that the lines between XX and XY can get blurred. In many cases, the affected individual can and should make a choice as to their gender, and might even change that choice later in life. In such cases, I support their decision.

On the other hand, I don't support people like Lia Thomas or school children opting to be "furries." There's medication for those disorders.

John Lees retorts:

Precisely. That's really the basic point that I would like to shout from the rooftops right now.
This entire debacle is a blessing for those who intend to self-id and masquerade as women, when they are not.
The gender-realist crowd have really messed up by launching an attack against a likely intersex person. They would have been better advised to hold their tongues. At least until they had better information about what is going on in this case.

Lyle Responds:

I have been critical of Khelif being allowed into the ring with female contenders. Not that I have some loathing for intersex people but because the IOC was being stupid. Whether Khelif is intersex or not, (s)he has a very decidedly male build and strength.

This is where I believe the IBA made the right decision. They dug down below the chromosomes and made an objective decision based on physique. This is Khelif jogging to keep in shape. I see an individual who has a male's physique and strength. Some argue that (s)he is androgen insensitive. That is absolutely not the case. If it were the case, (s)he would have a very decidedly female appearance. So, for me, the argument isn't if (s)he is male or female at the chromosomal level, but rather did (s)he develop a male or female physique? I think the answer is rather clear. The IOC wants to be woke.

Just my 2¢.

John again:

I would lean toward being critical of the IOC, if forced to give an opinion. But I strongly believe that defeating the current vogue trans mind virus is way more important than risking confusing the issue by focusing on one irrelevant micro-topic such as this.

Tim adds:

the problem with your view is it opens the door to a most insidious thing. As the jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes stated "hard cases make bad law" and that applies in this case. Human beings are incapable of common sense to a large degree and once the door is cracked open the barbarians come flooding in. In this case you are discussing a very rare hard case - mosaicism. But there are many very hard cases. For example, was Charles Mansion morally culpable for his crimes? It can be argued he wasn't; he was a product of a terrible environment. Does that make him not a monster?

What we as human beings have to do is draw specific lines and say "this may not be crossed" and that is as true of definitions as of anything else. The radicals in power now are always pushing those boundaries because they seek to overthrow societal norms. That is why they are pushing biological males into sports right now. They use deconstructionism to water down the meaning of words and the nature of things with the intent of making reality itself unknowable - then they can define it as they please. Pretty much EVERYTHING has it's exceptions. Language is imprecise and at the best of times operates on a kind of quantum indeterminacy. Look too closely at anything and you will see shades of gray.

But on the whole we can say a person with XY chromosomes is male, especially if he has a penis and elevated testosterone. Yes, there are exceptions. But do we change all of society because of them? Everyone has crosses to bear, and it may be a bummer to a person who thinks he is a woman being excluded, but since when is inclusion a civil right? Definitions are best practice. Just ask Pluto about definitions and being excluded!

"They would have been better advised to hold their tongues. At least until they had better information about what is going on in this case."

What good would that do? I disagree with this point. The fact is they were already utilizing this as "the new norm" making any sort of trans person into a romantic hero. Perception is often reality in the public mind. This needed to be slapped down. And given the public's short attention spans and limited understanding of the complexities you have discussed the public likely will not have it's heart melt based on the fact this wasn't a transvestite but an intersex person.

Let's face it, (s)he had no business in the ring with a woman. Nor in a lower weight class either. Boxing is classed for a reason. People are supposed to compete on an even playing field. (BTW I find women's boxing just weird and can't imagine how it has become a sport to begin with. I've yet to see an attractive woman boxer. Most look like effeminate men.)

John responds:

On the whole, we can say that. YES.
Whereas in cases of intersex this is often massively complicated.
So, THAT is why I believe that the recent focus on condemnation on a likely intersex person is a massive blunder.
My point, is your point, but extended even further.
I don't think that we should have been focusing our wrath on this case at all. Let's save our energy for the total bullshit of normal XY males, and normal XX females masquerading as the opposite sex.

Tim replies:

ohn, in many cases like this one there is confusion, and it happens more than people know. My mother worked on a maternity ward for years and saw that happen. When in doubt about the sex the doctors usually chose female arbitrarily.

And I take your point although I think this was indeed a proper place to make a stand. People understand that this what they saw - a woman who looked very much like a man beating the crap out of a clear woman and understand it viscerally. It wouldn't have the same impact if we discussed a trans swimmer or even soccer player. And it's the slippery slope. They get intersex people in there and eventually they will push for trans and get it. That's how the left "prepares" the public. You have to stop this at the beginning.

It may not be the final hill to die on but I think it proper to go here. If there is doubt we need to err on the side of caution. The IOC should have used the medical standard "first do no harm" rather than the Progressive standard "who are we to judge".

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:13 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1768 words, total size 11 kb.