Impregnation of Cis Female Woman, by Cis Woman, A Discussion of Swyers Syndrome.

[Jarhyn]

So, I'd been saying it for years that this was possible. The poster of the video is pregnant. The poster of this video is married to a second individual, who presents as female, due to Swyer's syndrome.

This is as much as I know about the specific case, and references available are those, if any, in the video.

Yes, this can happen. "No time in history has X ever happened" is not an argument that it cannot happen due to the wild variance found in nature, as regards sex or gender.

People with Swyers Syndrome can apparently become pregnant as well.

Either "men" can get pregnant... or "women" can make people pregnant, or both.

See also:

Swyer syndrome: MedlinePlus Genetics

Swyer syndrome is a condition that affects sex development. Explore symptoms, inheritance, genetics of this condition.

medlineplus.gov

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis ("develop with external phenotypes typical of females and nonfunctional gonads instead of ovaries or testes. Individuals are most commonly diagnosed during puberty after menstruation fails to occur (primary amenorrhea))
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5885995/ ("Rare successful pregnancy")

iI told you so.

 

[Bomb#20]

Yes, this can happen. "No time in history has X ever happened" is not an argument that it cannot happen due to the wild variance found in nature, as regards sex or gender.

People with Swyers Syndrome can apparently become pregnant as well.

Getting pregnant due to artificial implantation of a donated ovum doesn't exactly qualify as happening "due to the wild variance found in nature".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, this can happen. "No time in history has X ever happened" is not an argument that it cannot happen due to the wild variance found in nature, as regards sex or gender.

People with Swyers Syndrome can apparently become pregnant as well.

Getting pregnant due to artificial implantation of a donated ovum doesn't exactly qualify as happening "due to the wild variance found in nature".

The assertion has been made on here that nobody can produce gametes of the opposite sex. I'm not going to watch a TikTok to figure out exactly what happened as it's not going to address it scientifically enough. However, we have two people born with female anatomy that were apparently capable of producing a child.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yes, this can happen. "No time in history has X ever happened" is not an argument that it cannot happen due to the wild variance found in nature, as regards sex or gender.

People with Swyers Syndrome can apparently become pregnant as well.

Getting pregnant due to artificial implantation of a donated ovum doesn't exactly qualify as happening "due to the wild variance found in nature".

The assertion has been made on here that nobody can produce gametes of the opposite sex. I'm not going to watch a TikTok to figure out exactly what happened as it's not going to address it scientifically enough. However, we have two people born with female anatomy that were apparently capable of producing a child.

Both individuals have gotten pregnant. They have a number of children between them.

The most amazing is the one the poster (cis female XX) is hosting, because they were impregnated by their spouse, who is XY Swyers.

I posted this case specifically for its medical novelty, insofar as this is not a pregnancy "hosted by" Swyers due to implantation (which Bomb could have figured out for themselves from context but did not), but rather a pregnancy hosted by the other parent and fertilized best I can tell... By someone who doesn't even have a penis.

And of course, we can see who comes out of the woodwork to rage and bluster against reality.

 

[Bomb#20]

The assertion has been made on here that nobody can produce gametes of the opposite sex.

Is there a point to this? Since some unidentified person allegedly said something somewhere that was only 99.9% true, and he isn't here to defend himself by clarifying the record of exactly what he said or proving he was 100.0% right, and he's also one of the people who said out loud that the emperor has no clothes, are we supposed to infer from all this that the emperor is wearing clothes?

I'm not going to watch a TikTok to figure out exactly what happened as it's not going to address it scientifically enough.

That seems like a safe bet.

 

[Bomb#20]

I posted this case specifically for its medical novelty, insofar as this is not a pregnancy "hosted by" Swyers due to implantation (which Bomb could have figured out for themselves from context but did not),

What I wrote came straight out of your own link.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5885995/ ("Rare successful pregnancy")

"Intervention(s)
Chromosomal analysis, Saline infusion sonography, Pipelle endometrial scratch, ICSI using donor eggs, Embryo Transfer, and Caesarean delivery.

Main Outcome Measure(s)
Successful pregnancy and live birth.

Result(s)
Successful treatment with donor eggs, pregnancy, and delivery."
​

If you posted a link that wasn't about the case you wanted to talk about, that's on you.

but rather a pregnancy hosted by the other parent and fertilized best I can tell... By someone who doesn't even have a penis.

What's your point? Did somebody say nobody without a penis can fertilize an ovum?

And of course, we can see who comes out of the woodwork to rage and bluster against reality.

That would be you -- you're the one who chose to call some of man's many marvels of modern high technology "due to the wild variance found in nature". If you can point out any statement in which I "rage and bluster against reality", I'm all ears.

 

[Jarhyn]

I posted this case specifically for its medical novelty, insofar as this is not a pregnancy "hosted by" Swyers due to implantation (which Bomb could have figured out for themselves from context but did not),

What I wrote came straight out of your own link.

​

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5885995/ ("Rare successful pregnancy")

"Intervention(s)​

Chromosomal analysis, Saline infusion sonography, Pipelle endometrial scratch, ICSI using donor eggs, Embryo Transfer, and Caesarean delivery.​

​

Main Outcome Measure(s)​

Successful pregnancy and live birth.​

​

Result(s)​

Successful treatment with donor eggs, pregnancy, and delivery."​

​

If you posted a link that wasn't about the case you wanted to talk about, that's on you.

but rather a pregnancy hosted by the other parent and fertilized best I can tell... By someone who doesn't even have a penis.

What's your point? Did somebody say nobody without a penis can fertilize an ovum?

And of course, we can see who comes out of the woodwork to rage and bluster against reality.

That would be you -- you're the one who chose to call some of man's many marvels of modern high technology "due to the wild variance found in nature". If you can point out any statement in which I "rage and bluster against reality", I'm all ears.

You apparently didn't actually pay attention to the most pertinent part about the case in question, and who got whom pregnant here.

The fact is that I posted links about Swyers syndrome in general, and you did not actually pay attention to the obvious reasons form posting each link, with the later links clearly being added to learn more about what Swyers is rather than to discuss the specifics of the case.

Again, your lack of comprehension about the fundamentals of the case is your own issue to deal with, and I wish you all the luck in the world on that.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yes, this can happen. "No time in history has X ever happened" is not an argument that it cannot happen due to the wild variance found in nature, as regards sex or gender.

People with Swyers Syndrome can apparently become pregnant as well.

Getting pregnant due to artificial implantation of a donated ovum doesn't exactly qualify as happening "due to the wild variance found in nature".

The assertion has been made on here that nobody can produce gametes of the opposite sex. I'm not going to watch a TikTok to figure out exactly what happened as it's not going to address it scientifically enough. However, we have two people born with female anatomy that were apparently capable of producing a child.

I agree with the sentiment that TikTok is not a scientifically comprehensive and reliable source of information. That said, within the TikTok video, they show a medical report to demonstrate their point. So probably the act of not viewing the TikTok is going to block you from this route of analysis. Because it is TikTok and the report is a large paper, you'll have to zoom in or something if you want that option. Another option to analyze this would be to google their identifying info or info about their case and see what kind of more comprehensive pages and/or reliable sites come up.

 

[Emily Lake]

Yes, this can happen. "No time in history has X ever happened" is not an argument that it cannot happen due to the wild variance found in nature, as regards sex or gender.

People with Swyers Syndrome can apparently become pregnant as well.

Getting pregnant due to artificial implantation of a donated ovum doesn't exactly qualify as happening "due to the wild variance found in nature".

The assertion has been made on here that nobody can produce gametes of the opposite sex. I'm not going to watch a TikTok to figure out exactly what happened as it's not going to address it scientifically enough. However, we have two people born with female anatomy that were apparently capable of producing a child.

Both individuals have gotten pregnant. They have a number of children between them.

The most amazing is the one the poster (cis female XX) is hosting, because they were impregnated by their spouse, who is XY Swyers.

I posted this case specifically for its medical novelty, insofar as this is not a pregnancy "hosted by" Swyers due to implantation (which Bomb could have figured out for themselves from context but did not), but rather a pregnancy hosted by the other parent and fertilized best I can tell... By someone who doesn't even have a penis.

And of course, we can see who comes out of the woodwork to rage and bluster against reality.

Someone in that video is lying. That's pretty much all that needs to be said. Don't believe everything people post on the internet.

IF the second person has Swyer Syndrome, then they are infertile - they cannot produce ova or sperm. They cannot possibly have carried and delivered a child of their own genetic makeup, nor could they have impregnated a female.

On the other hand... one or the other or both could be complete liars. The second person could be a bog-standard XY male who is transgender, and is claiming "Swyer Syndrome" because it's not at all uncommon for transgender people to appropriate the actual medical conditions of other people for their own purposes. The first speaker could also be lying about being impregnated by the second, and instead used a sperm donor.

Either way, it is not possible for two females to procreate without an outside male donor. Random postings on tiktok don't change that.

 

[Emily Lake]

First off, the medical chart they flash up there doesn't contain a diagnosis of Swyer Syndrome. It contains the results of a genetic analysis, which shows that the person is karytypical XY with no identified genetic abnormalities. It says that the person reported their sex to be female.

It then goes on to discuss the two situations in which a person who is phenotypically female can have an XY karyotype. One of those is Swyer Syndrome, the other is CAIS.

There is no indication that a physical exam accompanied the genetic work, to confirm that the second person is actually phenotypically female.

https://www.theparadoxinstitute.com/read/sex-development-charts

 

[bilby]

IF the second person has Swyer Syndrome, then they are infertile

How do you know this?

People with Swyer Syndrome are almost invariably infertile, but there's always a minuscule probability of an exception.

By your reasoning, all people who claim to have won the lottery must be liars, because the odds of any individual being a lottery winner are too small to be worth considering.

In a world of eight billion people, extraordinarily unlikely occurrences are a daily phenomenon.

 

[Emily Lake]

IF the second person has Swyer Syndrome, then they are infertile

How do you know this?

People with Swyer Syndrome are almost invariably infertile, but there's always a minuscule probability of an exception.

By your reasoning, all people who claim to have won the lottery must be liars, because the odds of any individual being a lottery winner are too small to be worth considering.

In a world of eight billion people, extraordinarily unlikely occurrences are a daily phenomenon.

It's because Swyer results in streak gonads, which cannot produce gametes. It's a characteristic of the disorder, and is the result of the development pathway taken as a fetus.

People with Swyer follow a mullerian pathway, but the step that develops bipotential gonads into ovaries doesn't work, an essential ingredient is missed.

It's not a matter of odds, it's a matter of how fetuses develop and the steps involved in the differentiation process between male and female.

 

[Bomb#20]

You apparently didn't actually pay attention to the most pertinent part about the case in question, and who got whom pregnant here.

Outside your imagination, there is no "the" case in question -- you posted about multiple cases. Deal with it. "People with Swyers Syndrome can apparently become pregnant as well." Your words. Don't get in my face for talking about a topic you brought up.

The fact is that I posted links about Swyers syndrome in general ... with the later links clearly being added to learn more about what Swyers is rather than to discuss the specifics of the case.

So now you want to restrict discussion to the specifics of "the" case? Fine. According to Tiktok girl, her Swyer friend inseminated her. According to you, her Swyer friend has no penis. According to you and your link, "develop with external phenotypes typical of females and nonfunctional gonads instead of ovaries or testes." So if you want this case taken seriously as evidence for your claim that '"women" can make people pregnant' rather than as evidence that you can find just about anything on Tiktok no matter how loony, explain the apparent contradiction: viable semen allegedly coming out of an allegedly nonfunctional gonad. So never mind Tiktok girl's untrained nonexpert nonmedical laywoman's mental picture of what happened. What are the medical facts? In particular...

How did the Swyer patient inseminate her? What procedure was used? ICSI? IVF? Turkey baster? Rubbing vaginas together?

Again, your lack of comprehension about the fundamentals of the case is your own issue to deal with, and I wish you all the luck in the world on that.

"This is as much as I know about the specific case". Your words. I.e., you don't know the answer to my question, do you? I.e. your lack of comprehension about the fundamentals of the case is your own issue to deal with.

 

[Jarhyn]

IF the second person has Swyer Syndrome, then they are infertile

How do you know this?

People with Swyer Syndrome are almost invariably infertile, but there's always a minuscule probability of an exception.

By your reasoning, all people who claim to have won the lottery must be liars, because the odds of any individual being a lottery winner are too small to be worth considering.

In a world of eight billion people, extraordinarily unlikely occurrences are a daily phenomenon.

Quite the whole point of the thread. People wanted to claim something is actually *impossible* when there is no boundary which nature respects except *basic physical interactions*. Biology is so high above that, with its wiggling chemicals and entropy and chaos, that as I have been keen to point out since the beginning, don't really respect or care about arbitrary human classification.

Either our classification gets it right, in which case there would not be corner cases, or the classification gets it wrong. Corner case, meet wrong classification schema.

Funny enough in CS this is an acceptable way to achieve an identity, to take the incorrect function and solve on the error function and take the difference. But you still have to subtract on that error before rendering answers.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

To be open, I am skeptical of people on TikTok, too. BUT I think the focus being discussed is wrong. I think the primary focus ought to be on the sex is binary mantra and the secondary focus ought to be on the pregnancy, carrying, and delivery. That is, conservatives fail all the time in their defining sex and this case shows yet again another failure of the conservative sex-is-binary claim. Some people with Swyer's are genetically XY, but have female genitalia to include a vagina, small uterus, and fallopian tubes. There are documented cases of IVF etc that initiates a pregnancy of such XY person. I don't care that it is artificial because the focus ought to be on how biological sex is a spectrum and also what happens next after impregnation in these specific cases: fetal development. Umbilical cord. Etc. Etc. These kinds of cases are not about I-have-a-definition-I-want-you-to-accept, but rather a contrapositive: you begin by assuming sex is binary and then look at the cases and how they lead to inevitable contradictions because you made that assumption to begin with.

 

[Emily Lake]

Some people with Swyer's are genetically XY, but have female genitalia to include a vagina, small uterus, and fallopian tubes. There are documented cases of IVF etc that initiates a pregnancy of such XY person.

ALL people with Swyer Syndrome have karytype XY, and have phenotypical female genitals.

And because they have a female reproductive tract with non-functional gonads, they can be impregnated with someone else's egg via IVF, and are frequently capable of carrying a fetus to term using externally applied pregnancy hormones.

Sex is not a spectrum; People with Swyer Syndrome are female. They have the reproductive anatomy that has evolved to support the production of ova, even though they cannot actually produce ova. The fact that people with Swyer CAN AND HAVE gestated and delivered children demonstrates that they are female.

On the other hand, not a single person with Swyer Syndrome has ever been observed to have produced sperm, nor to have fathered children, nor to have a reproductive anatomy that has evolved to support the production of sperm. Thus, people with Swyer are NOT MALE.

Nor are they on some imaginary spectrum in between. Sex is not defined by karyotype, nor by secondary sex characteristics. Sex is defined by which type of reproductive anatomy the subject has. Even if that anatomy is incomplete, or unusual, or initially ambiguous. There is no "in between sex". There are only two sexes among all mammals, all birds, and the overwhelming majority of vertebrates. Other species (like algae) have evolved different reproductive strategies that do not have two distinct sexes - that's perfectly fine, but humans are NOT one of those other species, and the evolved reproductive approaches of those species are irrelevant to humans.

Karyotype is the mechanism by which sex is determined - and it's just as subject to interference as any other "blueprint". In humans, it is generally true that males have karyotype XY and females have karyotype XX, but it is not universal. Other karyotype combinations exist in humans. In exactly the same way that humans generally have 46 chromosomes, but some have 47 and are still considered human.

 

[bilby]

Sex is not defined by karyotype, nor by secondary sex characteristics. Sex is defined by which type of reproductive anatomy the subject has.

This post brought to you by the definitions police.

Sex is defined in all these ways and more.

And you will find groups of people who believe the whole "sex is binary" foolishness who will fight you to the death for refusing to accept that sex is solely defined by karyotype, and that reproductive anatomy is irrelevant.

This is typical of all religions - they tend towards schism and the persecution of heretics.

The fact is, sex and gender are not features of reality, they are human constructs intended to aid our understanding of reality. And they work very well, until we encounter edge cases, at which point they inevitably founder on the fact that reality is more complex than we want it to be.

The easy solution is shrill denunciation of all those who mention this inconvenient truth.

It's not a good solution; But it's easy.

Reproductive anatomy is the mechanism by which sex is determined - and it's just as subject to interference as any other "blueprint". In humans, it is generally true that males have only testes and females have only ovaries, but it is not universal. Other reproductive anatomy combinations exist in humans. In exactly the same way that humans generally have 46 chromosomes, but some have 47 and are still considered human.

 

[Emily Lake]

Sex is not defined by karyotype, nor by secondary sex characteristics. Sex is defined by which type of reproductive anatomy the subject has.

This post brought to you by the definitions police.

Sex is defined in all these ways and more.

Sex is redefined by people with a political agenda in a whole variety of ways that don't actually have anything at all to do with the actual evolution of sexual reproduction and the way in which that evolution is expressed.

Sex in humans and humans alone is DETERMINED by karyotype, and to a layperson, the generality of males being XY and females being XX is sufficient; just as it's sufficient for a layperson to say that humans have 46 chromosomes. It's a generality that is usually true. But it's not the salient definition that can be scientifically applied within the context of this discussion.

And you will find groups of people who believe the whole "sex is binary" foolishness who will fight you to the death for refusing to accept that sex is solely defined by karyotype, and that reproductive anatomy is irrelevant.

Yes, and you'll also find groups of people who believe the whole "earth is round" foolishness and will fight you for it too. Doesn't make them right.

This is typical of all religions - they tend towards schism and the persecution of heretics.

I just cannot express the feelings I have about a group of skeptics and atheists who have decided to proclaim scientific accuracy as a "religion" because it doesn't conform to their ideological beliefs in a gender soul.

The fact is, sex and gender are not features of reality, they are human constructs intended to aid our understanding of reality.

Sex is not a feature of reality? How the fuck do you think babies get made?

Sex is not a human construct, it's the result of millions of years of evolution. It's no more a human construct than eyeballs.

And they work very well, until we encounter edge cases, at which point they inevitably founder on the fact that reality is more complex than we want it to be.

I still haven't found a single iota of evidence for that wonderful sperg. Have you? Care to share your evidence of a sperg with the rest of us? I'm quite certain there will be a nobel prize in it for you.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

The easy solution is shrill denunciation of all those who mention this inconvenient truth.

It's not a good solution; But it's easy.

Reproductive anatomy is the mechanism by which sex is determined - and it's just as subject to interference as any other "blueprint". In humans, it is generally true that males have only testes and females have only ovaries, but it is not universal. Other reproductive anatomy combinations exist in humans. In exactly the same way that humans generally have 46 chromosomes, but some have 47 and are still considered human.

ISWYDT

 

[bilby]

Sex in humans and humans alone is DETERMINED by karyotype, and to a layperson, the generality of males being XY and females being XX is sufficient; just as it's sufficient for a layperson to say that humans have 46 chromosomes. It's a generality that is usually true. But it's not the salient definition that can be scientifically applied within the context of this discussion.

There is NO "salient definition that can be scientifically applied within the context of this discussion".

You can pick one, and have a discussion that revolves around the use of that definition as an axiom. Doing so allows us to resolve all kinds of scientific and technological issues regarding reproduction, from the provision of contraception to people who don't want children, to the provision of assistance of various kinds to people who do want children but aren't easily able to achieve that.

But this discussion isn't amenable to a single definition being "scientifically applied"; It's a sociological and political discussion, and central to it is the fact that many definitions are possible.

Picking a single definition in order to achieve scientific rigour is simply not a viable strategy in a debate that has at its heart the question of which definitions to pick.

If we define "football" to mean Association Football, then we can scientifically determine which is the best football team in the world, by having them play against each other and observing who wins.

But it would be absurd to try to determine whether Manchester United were a better football team than St Helens, because they each use a different definition for "football". They can't play against each other, unless we arbitrarily declare one definition to be absolute. Which is fine for some purposes (as mentioned above), but useless for others.

The sociological and political question of whether we should say St Helens is a better football team than Manchester United isn't able to be addressed scientifically; And attempts to address it by arbitrarily picking our preferred definition and declaring it to be the one and only definition is just going to piss people off, while illustrating our inability to understand what the question even is.

 

[Bomb#20]

There is NO "salient definition that can be scientifically applied within the context of this discussion".
...
But it would be absurd to try to determine whether Manchester United were a better football team than St Helens, because they each use a different definition for "football". ...

You can adopt that viewpoint if you want, but the categorizational nihilism you are applying here is not a rifle. It's a hand grenade. It doesn't conveniently shoot down your political opponents' arguments and leave your political allies' arguments unscathed. What you are saying to Emily applies with equal force to Don. Subtract out his appeal to objective categories and Don's post amounts to "assuming sex is binary leads to inevitable contradictions because there are documented cases of people getting pregnant."

If the answer isn't "because the left lives and breathes double standards", why does Emily get a lecture and Don get a "Like"?