Mississippi Passes "More Dead Kids Please" bill. Texas responds w/ "hold my beer"

[Emily Lake]

Actually that’s not accurate: there is at least one individual who has been documented as both having fathered a child and having given birth to another child. Yes, it’s extraordinarily rare and very difficult to wrap one’s mind around.

It sounds like you might be referring to this case:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7200380/

"An unusual case of true hermaphroditism is reported. The patient was a 32-year-old phenotypically male true hermaphrodite. Histology of his removed ovary suggested that ovulation had, at some time, occurred. He had also fathered a child and this is believed to be the first case of a cytogenetically proved true hermaphrodite who is fertile as a male."

The guy was a chimera -- two sperms and two ova fused in utero. So he had a functional testis and ovary; but I think the phrase "phenotypically male" means he had no uterus. The case is claimed to be unique in various cites, and if there's another case where the person also had a uterus and gave birth, my googling hasn't turned it up.

I think this might be the case. My memory was that the individual both fathered a child and also gave birth but it's been some years so I could be mis-remembering. I don't remember it as a pubmed article though....

OK: I think I had read the Wiki or something similar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_hermaphroditism

Fertility[edit]​

The gonad most likely to function is the ovary.[12] The ovotestes show evidence of ovulation in 50% of cases.[13] Spermatogenesis has only been observed in solitary testes and not in the testicular portions of ovotestes.[14][13] According to a 1994 study, spermatogenesis has only been proven in two cases.[15] One of the two cases, having XX,46/XY,46 mixture had fathered a child.[16]

It has been estimated that 80% of cases could be fertile as females with the right surgeries.[6]

Documented cases of fertility[edit]​

There are extremely rare cases of fertility in "truly hermaphroditic" humans.[15][17]

In 1994 a study on 283 cases found 21 pregnancies from 10 true hermaphrodites, while one allegedly fathered a child.[15]

As of 2010, there have been at least 11 reported cases of fertility in true hermaphrodite humans in the scientific literature,[4] with one case of a person with XY-predominant (96%) mosaic giving birth.[18] All known offspring have been male.[19] There has been at least one case of an individual being fertile as a male.[16]

There is a hypothetical scenario, in which it could be possible for a human to self-fertilize. If a human chimera is formed from a male and female zygote fusing into a single embryo, giving an individual functional gonadal tissue of both types, such self-fertilization is feasible. Indeed, it is known to occur in non-human species where hermaphroditic animals are common.[20] However, no such case of functional self-fertilization or true bisexuality has been documented in humans.[14][10]

​

Follow the reference links. The source says

We reviewed 283 cases of human true hermaphroditism published from 1980 to 1992. Of the 96 cases described in Africa 96.9% showed a 46,XX karyotype. In Europe 40.5% of 74 cases and 21.0% of the patients in North America had chromosomal mosaicism. The 46,XY karyotype is extremely rare (7%) and equally distributed through Asia, Europe and North America. Of 283 cases 87 were of black or black mixed origin with a 46,XX chromosomal constellation. The most common gonad in patients with true hermaphroditism, an ovotestis, was found in 44.4% of 568 gonads. Gonads with testicular tissue were more frequent on the right side of the body, while pure ovarian tissue was more common on the left. Histologically the testicular tissue was described to be immature and only twice was spermatogenesis reported while the ovarian portion often appeared normal. This coincides with 21 pregnancies reported in ten true hermaphrodites while only one true hermaphrodite apparently has fathered a child. Of the patients 4.6% were reported to have gonadal tumours. Position and type of the genital ducts, frequency of clinical findings such as genital abnormalities and gynaecomastia, correlations between assigned sex and karyotype as well as the age at diagnosis are reported.

Emphasis mine. The orange line does NOT claim that the one hermaphrodite that fathered a child was one of the 21 who had pregnancies. It is a different person - it is one of the ONLY cases of a true hermaphrodite being fertile as a male, and that person was documented as being phenotypically male in appearance, but having one gonad formed of ovarian tissue. There are only two recorded cases of a true hermaphrodite even producing sperm at all.

 

[Emily Lake]

I appreciate that there are important and valid concerns on all sides of gender affirming care. But I don’t think outright banning its use fir a group is a humane or rational policy. In my opinion, clear standards/ guidelines driven by science and psychology are a better way to address the issue.

Normally, I would agree with you. On principle, I would prefer to leave it to doctors.

The problem is that the doctors prescribing the medical interventions are psychologists and "gender specialists", they aren't medical doctors treating medical problems. They are prescribing pharmaceutical and surgical intervention as treatment for a mental health state. And they are doing so for minors.

If the psychological community had a better track record of dealing with mental health conditions, I might be more inclined to sit aside. But really... repressed memories, ritual satanic child abuse, hsyterectomies to treat "overly emotional" women, lobotomies, shock therapy. The list goes on and on. Even talk therapies have extremely low success rates. Psychologists using physical means to treat a mental disorder has almost always been disastrous.

But historically, most of those have at least been used on adults.

 

[Emily Lake]

In my opinion, banning a medical procedure that may help some people because it may also harm others is a lazy or stupid policy response to an issue.

Let's be a bit more clear here. We're talking about banning a cosmetic procedure that may or may not help some people, and has not been shown to have a long-term benefit. It's also the case that these cosmetic procedures cause harm to otherwise healthy bodies, and increase the risk of a whole lot of conditions, regardless of whether those cosmetic procedures boost the mental health state of some people.

In effect, you're objecting to a law that says "doctor's can't amputate the limbs of MINORS with BIID, because some of those MINORS will grow out of their BIID, and it would be better if they had all their limbs. But if an ADULTS wants to have a limb amputated to help their mental health. that's on them."

For clarity's sake, you and the Mississippi legislature are substituting your views for appropriate care over those of parents and health care professionals who know the person in question. In essence, you and Mississippi legislature are willing to have someone endure possible life-endangering stress because of fear they might make a wrong decision or just one that you disagree with.


I think putting reasonable safeguards on the administration of gender-affirming care is a much more humane policy than placing an unilateral ban on the care for minors.

I'm substituting my direct experience with a doctor who knew fuck-all about my niece and still prescribed her testosterone after having spent 30 minutes with her.

At this point, I don't have any confidence that reasonable safeguards will be followed.

To be honest, even if the child in question is genuinely and persistently dysphoric, I still think it's better to let them complete puberty before intervening. Puberty is a vital aspect of development, and it is a multi-system process.

 

[Oleg]

I appreciate that there are important and valid concerns on all sides of gender affirming care. But I don’t think outright banning its use fir a group is a humane or rational policy. In my opinion, clear standards/ guidelines driven by science and psychology are a better way to address the issue.

I don’t know what science would support irreversible procedures on minors. If they don’t understand that they cannot change their sex, that they will likely become infertile, and will need a lifetime of injections, how could there be informed consent? I mean, a contract with a minor is generally void as they legally lack the capacity to understand a contract. Yet, they’d fully understand the consequences of irreversible procedures before adulthood? Nah.

 

[Oleg]

It's almost as if the trans activists are predatory, taking advantage of awkward and confused youth. The push for "general affirming" mutilation on minors seems to trap them while they're young and confused. Otherwise, they might forget they're trans.

 

[laughing dog]

I appreciate that there are important and valid concerns on all sides of gender affirming care. But I don’t think outright banning its use fir a group is a humane or rational policy. In my opinion, clear standards/ guidelines driven by science and psychology are a better way to address the issue.

I don’t know what science would support irreversible procedures on minors. …

Admitted lack of knowledge is not a convincing basis for a position in my view.

BTW, the USA permits “gender mutilation” on a routine basis without the child’s knowledge, let alone with consent. It’s called circumcision.

 

[laughing dog]

In my opinion, banning a medical procedure that may help some people because it may also harm others is a lazy or stupid policy response to an issue.

Let's be a bit more clear here. We're talking about banning a cosmetic procedure that may or may not help some people, and has not been shown to have a long-term benefit. It's also the case that these cosmetic procedures cause harm to otherwise healthy bodies, and increase the risk of a whole lot of conditions, regardless of whether those cosmetic procedures boost the mental health state of some people.

In effect, you're objecting to a law that says "doctor's can't amputate the limbs of MINORS with BIID, because some of those MINORS will grow out of their BIID, and it would be better if they had all their limbs. But if an ADULTS wants to have a limb amputated to help their mental health. that's on them."

For clarity's sake, you and the Mississippi legislature are substituting your views for appropriate care over those of parents and health care professionals who know the person in question. In essence, you and Mississippi legislature are willing to have someone endure possible life-endangering stress because of fear they might make a wrong decision or just one that you disagree with.


I think putting reasonable safeguards on the administration of gender-affirming care is a much more humane policy than placing an unilateral ban on the care for minors.

I'm substituting my direct experience with a doctor who knew fuck-all about my niece and still prescribed her testosterone after having spent 30 minutes with her.

At this point, I don't have any confidence that reasonable safeguards will be followed.

To be honest, even if the child in question is genuinely and persistently dysphoric, I still think it's better to let them complete puberty before intervening. Puberty is a vital aspect of development, and it is a multi-system process.

It might be, but puberty can end while someone is a minor or continue into legal adulthood .

I am thankful that as a parent of 4 children that our household did not have to deal with such a heart rending issue.

 

[Toni]

In my opinion, banning a medical procedure that may help some people because it may also harm others is a lazy or stupid policy response to an issue.

Let's be a bit more clear here. We're talking about banning a cosmetic procedure that may or may not help some people, and has not been shown to have a long-term benefit. It's also the case that these cosmetic procedures cause harm to otherwise healthy bodies, and increase the risk of a whole lot of conditions, regardless of whether those cosmetic procedures boost the mental health state of some people.

In effect, you're objecting to a law that says "doctor's can't amputate the limbs of MINORS with BIID, because some of those MINORS will grow out of their BIID, and it would be better if they had all their limbs. But if an ADULTS wants to have a limb amputated to help their mental health. that's on them."

For clarity's sake, you and the Mississippi legislature are substituting your views for appropriate care over those of parents and health care professionals who know the person in question. In essence, you and Mississippi legislature are willing to have someone endure possible life-endangering stress because of fear they might make a wrong decision or just one that you disagree with.


I think putting reasonable safeguards on the administration of gender-affirming care is a much more humane policy than placing an unilateral ban on the care for minors.

I'm substituting my direct experience with a doctor who knew fuck-all about my niece and still prescribed her testosterone after having spent 30 minutes with her.

At this point, I don't have any confidence that reasonable safeguards will be followed.

To be honest, even if the child in question is genuinely and persistently dysphoric, I still think it's better to let them complete puberty before intervening. Puberty is a vital aspect of development, and it is a multi-system process.

My first impulse is to agree with you. I believe that in most cases, surgeries and medical treatments which will have permanent effects should not be performed on children except where medically necessary.

But the term medically necessary can mean different things. The most serious decision I had to make with regards to my own children's treatment was to insist my child continue in orthodontia even though they found it painful. I only insisted because I knew how serious the malocclusion was and that it was preferable to the surgical intervention that would have almost certainly have been required without braces. So, not even close to the same decisions parents of children with gender dysmorphia are faced with. I've known parents who decided that at a certain age, their child would have to make the decision about whether to continue with painful surgeries to correct skeletal deformities at a certain age, in this particular case: age 13.

Gender affirming care is relatively new. I am not at all certain how I would make decisions for my child if I were faced with that situation. My instinct would be to insist on waiting until adulthood. But if I were facing a child's seriously deteriorating mental health, I might consider all options available, including gender affirming medical care, with a lot of participation by the child and by as many professionals with expertise as I could find.

 

[ZiprHead]

The problem is that the doctors prescribing the medical interventions are psychologists and "gender specialists", they aren't medical doctors treating medical problems. They are prescribing pharmaceutical and surgical intervention as treatment for a mental health state. And they are doing so for minors.

Psychologists cannot prescribe medication. Psychiatrists can do so.

 

[laughing dog]

The problem is that the doctors prescribing the medical interventions are psychologists and "gender specialists", they aren't medical doctors treating medical problems. They are prescribing pharmaceutical and surgical intervention as treatment for a mental health state. And they are doing so for minors.

Psychologists cannot prescribe medication. Psychiatrists can do so.

And mental health is a medical issue.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm substituting my direct experience with a doctor who knew fuck-all about my niece and still prescribed her testosterone after having spent 30 minutes with her.

Were you in the room with the niece and the physician? Your niece may have been much more honest with the doctor than she was with you. She may have been fully aware of your anti-trans views so she hid her feelings from you.

 

[Emily Lake]

I appreciate that there are important and valid concerns on all sides of gender affirming care. But I don’t think outright banning its use fir a group is a humane or rational policy. In my opinion, clear standards/ guidelines driven by science and psychology are a better way to address the issue.

I don’t know what science would support irreversible procedures on minors. …

Admitted lack of knowledge is not a convincing basis for a position in my view.

BTW, the USA permits “gender mutilation” on a routine basis without the child’s knowledge, let alone with consent. It’s called circumcision.

I object to that as well. Although I will also note that circumcision doesn't cause health problems, doesn't reduce life expectancy or increase risk of other conditions, and doesn't produce sterility.

I oppose it on the basis that it's an unnecessary surgery that alters a healthy body, without the consent of the boy.

If you somehow think that circumcision is a supporting argument for anti-hormone drugs, wrong-sex exogenous hormones, or double mastectomies... perhaps give that more thought?

 

[Emily Lake]

My first impulse is to agree with you. I believe that in most cases, surgeries and medical treatments which will have permanent effects should not be performed on children except where medically necessary.

But the term medically necessary can mean different things. The most serious decision I had to make with regards to my own children's treatment was to insist my child continue in orthodontia even though they found it painful. I only insisted because I knew how serious the malocclusion was and that it was preferable to the surgical intervention that would have almost certainly have been required without braces. So, not even close to the same decisions parents of children with gender dysmorphia are faced with. I've known parents who decided that at a certain age, their child would have to make the decision about whether to continue with painful surgeries to correct skeletal deformities at a certain age, in this particular case: age 13.

Gender affirming care is relatively new. I am not at all certain how I would make decisions for my child if I were faced with that situation. My instinct would be to insist on waiting until adulthood. But if I were facing a child's seriously deteriorating mental health, I might consider all options available, including gender affirming medical care, with a lot of participation by the child and by as many professionals with expertise as I could find.

I get where you're coming from. I end up taking a step back on it.

Are there any other mental health disorders where you would support physical intervention as a treatment?

If your child was severely distressed about their nose, would you support a cosmetic nose job as a treatment, when there wasn't anything actually wrong with their nose? What if that nose job increased their risk of other illnesses and ailments? What if that nose job was likely to make them infertile before they'd even had an opportunity to really explore whether they want kids?

I tend to think that psychiatric and psychological treatment is more appropriate, especially for a minor.

 

[laughing dog]

I appreciate that there are important and valid concerns on all sides of gender affirming care. But I don’t think outright banning its use fir a group is a humane or rational policy. In my opinion, clear standards/ guidelines driven by science and psychology are a better way to address the issue.

I don’t know what science would support irreversible procedures on minors. …

Admitted lack of knowledge is not a convincing basis for a position in my view.

BTW, the USA permits “gender mutilation” on a routine basis without the child’s knowledge, let alone with consent. It’s called circumcision.

I object to that as well. Although I will also note that circumcision doesn't cause health problems, doesn't reduce life expectancy or increase risk of other conditions, and doesn't produce sterility.

I oppose it on the basis that it's an unnecessary surgery that alters a healthy body, without the consent of the boy.

If you somehow think that circumcision is a supporting argument for anti-hormone drugs, wrong-sex exogenous hormones, or double mastectomies... perhaps give that more thought?

The point is that harping on gender mutilation in this case. The state of Mississippi is ok with it in principle.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm substituting my direct experience with a doctor who knew fuck-all about my niece and still prescribed her testosterone after having spent 30 minutes with her.

Were you in the room with the niece and the physician? Your niece may have been much more honest with the doctor than she was with you. She may have been fully aware of your anti-trans views so she hid her feelings from you.

I don't have an anti-trans view, ZiprHead.

Apparently she hid her "true and honest feelings" from her mother and from her transgender sibling for her entire fucking life, as well as from everyone else in our family... But this "specialist" was able to "confirm" that all of her problems are because she's trans within a whopping 30 minutes.

Seriously, you don't know me, you don't know my family, and you sure as fuck don't know my niece - where do you get off dropping such insulting rhetoric as if you're somehow the expert on this shit? What gives you any reason at all to make the insinuation that I don't know the niece I've been around my entire fucking life... but you, some nobody on the internet, you know better and I'm just a nasty transphobe?

Don't use the tragedy of my niece's situation as some sort of twisted pawn in a game you play on the internet.

 

[Emily Lake]

I appreciate that there are important and valid concerns on all sides of gender affirming care. But I don’t think outright banning its use fir a group is a humane or rational policy. In my opinion, clear standards/ guidelines driven by science and psychology are a better way to address the issue.

I don’t know what science would support irreversible procedures on minors. …

Admitted lack of knowledge is not a convincing basis for a position in my view.

BTW, the USA permits “gender mutilation” on a routine basis without the child’s knowledge, let alone with consent. It’s called circumcision.

I object to that as well. Although I will also note that circumcision doesn't cause health problems, doesn't reduce life expectancy or increase risk of other conditions, and doesn't produce sterility.

I oppose it on the basis that it's an unnecessary surgery that alters a healthy body, without the consent of the boy.

If you somehow think that circumcision is a supporting argument for anti-hormone drugs, wrong-sex exogenous hormones, or double mastectomies... perhaps give that more thought?

The point is that harping on gender mutilation in this case. The state of Mississippi is ok with it in principle.

Even though I don't support political intervention in medicine on principle... At the moment, I don't have a good solution. The medical community is over-eager to affirm permanent patients into being, and I think it's being incredibly negligent and harmful. Doctors aren't immune from social pressure, especially when that social pressure presents them with a fat paycheck too.

 

[laughing dog]

Even though I don't support political intervention in medicine on principle... At the moment, I don't have a good solution. The medical community is over-eager to affirm permanent patients into being, and I think it's being incredibly negligent and harmful. Doctors aren't immune from social pressure, especially when that social pressure presents them with a fat paycheck too.

There is no good solution now because we don’t know enough and probably never will.

I believe if our household had to struggle with this issue, that my wife and I would have pushed to wait.

But I know if she and I were convinced more immediate action was necessary, we’d have resented like hell a ban.

I am also under the impression that gender affirming care includes counselling which may lead to an affirmation to remain the same gender.

All of this leads me to think thoughtful standards is a better policy. Standards as mandatory waiting periods before pharmaceutical or medical intervention, and a requirement of multiple independent diagnoses come to my mind.

 

[Toni]

My first impulse is to agree with you. I believe that in most cases, surgeries and medical treatments which will have permanent effects should not be performed on children except where medically necessary.

But the term medically necessary can mean different things. The most serious decision I had to make with regards to my own children's treatment was to insist my child continue in orthodontia even though they found it painful. I only insisted because I knew how serious the malocclusion was and that it was preferable to the surgical intervention that would have almost certainly have been required without braces. So, not even close to the same decisions parents of children with gender dysmorphia are faced with. I've known parents who decided that at a certain age, their child would have to make the decision about whether to continue with painful surgeries to correct skeletal deformities at a certain age, in this particular case: age 13.

Gender affirming care is relatively new. I am not at all certain how I would make decisions for my child if I were faced with that situation. My instinct would be to insist on waiting until adulthood. But if I were facing a child's seriously deteriorating mental health, I might consider all options available, including gender affirming medical care, with a lot of participation by the child and by as many professionals with expertise as I could find.

I get where you're coming from. I end up taking a step back on it.

Are there any other mental health disorders where you would support physical intervention as a treatment?

If your child was severely distressed about their nose, would you support a cosmetic nose job as a treatment, when there wasn't anything actually wrong with their nose? What if that nose job increased their risk of other illnesses and ailments? What if that nose job was likely to make them infertile before they'd even had an opportunity to really explore whether they want kids?

I tend to think that psychiatric and psychological treatment is more appropriate, especially for a minor.

I honestly don't know. The closest I came to such a scenario is when my child seriously fought me regarding braces. At the time, the orthodontist was considering whether or not to recommend surgical realignment of the jaw. This child was in braces longer than their sibling and continued to resent the fact that I insisted they continue until the orthodontist felt they were 'corrected' well into adolescence and even as old as early 20's. I am certain it was the correct decision and I am certain that that particular offspring would have ended up very unhappy with their looks if orthodontia had not taken place, and would have likely suffered from a number of ill effects aside from cosmetic, including life long dental issues and also likely some headaches. Not a fun time for any of us and I wasn't the one with mouth pain or feeling awkward around my peers.

Psychiatric treatment and psychological treatment is definitely appropriate. Medical treatment? I honestly don't know.

I still think back to the child I knew who, at age 5, insisted that they were a boy, despite outward appearances. The family was....unpleasant in many respects and there were a lot of mental health issues among all the siblings. I avoided the parents to the extent possible given that our kids were friends. It wasn't as though I did not consider that the very weird family dynamics were contributing to the child's distress---I am certain that they were. Two of the siblings attempted suicide by the time they reached adulthood. Three of the four spent time in mental hospitals. One of my kids' friends referred to the mother as 'evil' which rather shocked me because this individual never spoke ill of anyone. It also was what I thought about her. Obviously there was a lot of mental illness in the family. That said, the child I knew best, who spent a fair amount of time at my house, seemed to be emotionally healthy: Obviously intelligent, creative, outspoken, confident. None of which precludes mental illnesses, of course. But no mental illnesses were obvious to me aside from conflicts with the parents, which seemed inevitable from my stand point, even setting aside my dislike of the parents. I remember considering that child and considering my own childhood when I was very much a tom boy and very much rebelled against unfair expectations and restrictions of girls and women. I thought that menstruation and bras were both examples of unfairness to girls, as well as a lot that I heard about what girls could and could not do, much of which I wanted to do and DID do. This child was emphatically NOT that. I could not help but see and note the stark difference. She was not a tomboy. She was he, to the very core. The family changed school districts and the children drifted apart and I only occasionally heard of them through other people. I know that eventually, she changed to he, surgically and was living as a man but I haven't heard from him directly since they were a child.

Would medical intervention earlier on have benefited this child? I simply do not know. But I do think of them every time this topic comes up. For them, what was already a complex issue was further complicated by the mental illness and dysfunction in their family. It would take a team of professionals with more intimate knowledge than I have to sort out the issues. What I know for certain is that I truly felt for that child and their pain and the lack of sympathy and empathy they received from their family. Would my family have handled the issue better? It's easy to think so. But I honestly do not know.

 

[bilby]

Don't use the tragedy of my niece's situation as some sort of twisted pawn in a game you play on the internet.

Good advice.

You should have taken it.

 

[Oleg]

Admitted lack of knowledge is not a convincing basis for a position in my view.

Well, no. I’m aware that many European countries have now reversed their position on “gender affirming” mutilation of minors. That’s because the evidence of long-term benefit is lacking. In short, this is all experimental and these children used as guinea pigs.