Between The Sexes (Intersex Children)

Time Magazine ^ | 02.27.04 | Christine Gorman and Wendy Cole

[nmh]

Hey where's the asian doll? Isn't this supposed to be a tease as well as using politically correct props? All I saw was a black doll, a white doll and an animal.

[Mr. Bird]

It is oxymoronic to construct "rights" that involve the picking of someone else's pockets. Our rights to our own life, liberty and property precede the claims of others.

I, of course, agree with you. I should have been clear: if the individual has the means to obtain the intervention necessary, it should not be denied based on their genetic disposition. I would never propose that others pay, either directly or via taxation.

And my declaration that it is a fundamental right should be clarified that all of us have a fundamental right to pursue the propagation of our genes. We can't force ourselves on another for this purpose, of course.

[TheBattman]

You know, I read through this article twice - just to make certain that I missed nothing. After that reading and some thought, I agree with you. It sounds like they are making an excuse for those who, in adulthood, decide to swap genders.

Notice the "precision" of their statistics - between .2% and 2% of live births....

Wow - statistics with a window that wide are sooooo convincing.

Are there sometimes babies born with some really messed up gender traits - probably. Is it in ANY way common from a bilogical viewpoint - no. What the freak-show crowd would like do is blurr the line between biology and psychology.

[Paul C. Jesup]

But the RNA/hormones are the ones that actually build the body while the DNA is only the blueprints. I hope see what I am trying state.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Thank you.

[gcruse]

Intersexuality is just a choice, isn't it? Or have I been hanging around here too long?

[MetalHeadConservative35]

I say this is using biologically-unique individuals for the trans-sexual agenda. Sickening...

its hard to say,in my opinion being intersexual is just like having a defect or disablity that was no choice of that person but rather just a twist of fate

as for trans sexual agenda,i have no idea what that is,all ive been seeing around here is gay agenda so its hard to find info on that

[VxH]

>>their genes are just as good as yours.

"Good"?

What standard are you measuring this "goodness" against?

From a biological/ scientific perspective, "goodness" would be the observed, measured, effect of these genes upon the overall fitness of the population.

[VxH]

>>And if you weren't asking that, can you clarify?

Should genetic defects be subsidized?

[VxH]

>>I do think there is an agenda to normalize the abnormal here, for political reasons.

Right on target. Fire for Effect.

[WOSG]

Get your VRWC decoder ring: You'll find that "health care is a right" translates to "We demand socialized medicine".

Just trying to force clarification in the discussion.

[ahayes]

Can you read? Most of the time these are not genetic effects. Go back and reread my initial post.

[ahayes]

Who said health care is a right? I think it is something that should be extended to as many people as possible through charity, but definitely remain unsocialized.

I don't think I'd say a person has a right to have cosmetic surgery to fix ambiguous genitalia, a cleft palate, burn scars. . . But much of the time the parents' insurance will cover this surgery, and charitable organizations could help contribute as well.

[aruanan]

Evolution's diversity at work.

Not if it can't reproduce.

[WOSG]

Okay.

"I should have been clear: if the individual has the means to obtain the intervention necessary, it should not be denied based on their genetic disposition. I would never propose that others pay, either directly or via taxation.
"

True, but I dont think anyone is really proposing any such legal limits; adults can have whatever surgery they want to pay for.

I would say this: We really dont have the 'right' to something that nature doesnt doesnt give us. I'd love to have a great singing voice and to run like a gazelle, but nature didnt give it to me. The underlying assumption in the article is that everyone should be able to have everything without limits or 'unfairness', that we should treat abnormal cases as normal. That kind of shallow unrealism annoys me - life has limits.

[VxH]

>>But the RNA/hormones are the ones that actually build the body while the DNA is only the blueprints.

 

Only the blue prints? LOL.  Which came first the DNA or the RNA?   Kind of a divine paradox, isn't it?

What you are attempting to obfuscate is a process called "RNA Transcription".

 

RNA Transcription

---

This figure illustrates the process of RNA transcription. As the enzyme RNA polymerase moves along the region of DNA to be transcribed, the DNA backbones separate, yielding the template and inactive strands. Nucleotides are assembled following the rule of basepairing, in the 5' to 3' direction. Ultimately, the formed RNA separates from the DNA template and the backbone strands of the DNA rejoin (as shown at the bottom of the figure). This process is also depicted in the animation below:

http://tidepool.st.usm.edu/crswr/rnatranscript.html

[aruanan]

I doubt it. She is a disfigured man.

Remember, the default fetal phenotype is female. Hormone release during development results in the development of male gonads and genitalia. If a fetus who is genotypically male has a defect in the gene for androgen receptors so that the hormones cannot dock with the receptor, he will develop phenotypically female, though sterile and non-menstruating. If a fetus who is genotypically female has an overproduction of androgen during a critical phase of development, she can end up with a phenotype more or less characteristic of a male. As one of our biochem teachers said on the subject with respect to a newborn, "Now that's either a very small penis or a very large clitoris."

[VxH]

>>Can you read? Most of the time these are not genetic effects.

 

    From your original Post:
        [Typically chimeras originate from two embryos fusing in the womb]

 

 

And why does this defect take place? 

 

Could it be because the mother has a defect in the DNA that codes for the enzymes involved in embryonic development?

 

Or maybe she has a defect in the DNA that recognizes and spontaneously aborts "birth defects".

 

Perfectly plausible hypothesis. 

 

Quack quack waddle waddle... Oh look, it's genetic.

 

 

[ahayes]

No. Chimerism occurs when two normal embryos fuse or when cells from one normal embryo are transferred to the twin embryo. This is a normal occurrance--in fact, mothers who have born a baby boy have a handful of XY cells from their baby scattered through their tissues. It is a testimony to the plasticity of stem cells.

There is a vast difference between proposing a hypothesis and jumping to a conclusion. You have nothing (and there is nothing) to support your position that there is a genetic bias towards chimerism, yet you're putting forth some sort of eugenic program in spite of your ignorance. Not very impressive.

[VxH]

>>This is a normal occurrance--in fact, mothers
>>who have born a baby boy have a handful of XY cells
>>from their baby scattered through their tissues

How does the mother's immune system know not to reject the cells?

Genetics.