No doubt it’s part of the ongoing internal battle on the wider subject.
It wasn’t until she was 36, after years of “performing as a man”, that she found out that she has partial androgen insensitivity syndrome (PAIS). Essentially, that meant that although she had the XY chromosomes characteristic of a male, her body didn’t fully respond to testosterone, and would never look fully “masculine”. After doctors advised her that keeping her male genitalia would greatly increase her risk of cancer, Luk agreed to have surgery to remove them and started living legally as a woman. Now, alongside her work as a doctor of Chinese medicine, she is an ardent activist for intersex rights across the globe – calling for an end to genital reconstruction surgeries on children before they are old enough to consent themselves. “I really don’t want them to experience the same suffering,” she says.
All part of that trans stuff. For there are indeed those few intersex. And it’s possible to have the argument over surgery on children using intersex instead of trans. You know, to avoid getting mobbed by shrieking nonsense from the likes of Freddie. You know, Freddie, the bird who took testosterone then stopped in order to get pregnant – twice I think – and also insisted that they feared for their very life because someone in The Guardian newsroom said something not fully supportive. Can’t recall what that was, maybe rainbow zebra crossings or something.
God, the grammer mangling is atocious there.
“When she was 36… she *HAD*….” not has.
Yeah, obviously. Hard for society to develop a blueprint for something which affects 1 in 2000. I agree with Small Luk (nominative determinism?) that perhaps it is best for intersex people to live as intersex people, rather than picking a side. Unless you can become a mother or a father of course, but if my understanding is correct, truly intersex people can’t.
The “trans” press always tells us that 1.7% are intersex. This 1.7% figure is an order of magnitude estimate derived from a 2000 academic review of medical literature by Blackless. The criteria Blackless used for determining “intersex” was ludicrously broad.
Other studies using the more rigorous criteria of overtly ambiguous genitalia or a clear discrepancy between chromosomal and physical sex .i.e. intersex, estimate a prevalence of 0.018% to 0.05%.
Yes that estimate is orders of magnitude too large.
If it were 1.7% pretty much everyone would know someone who was. After all, unless you’re a shut-in, you likely know more than 100 people enough to talk to.
I feel sympathetic to the poor soul. I would be entirely happy if our social customs allowed such a person to live life as best he/she/it can, as long as it doesn’t involve telling official lies e.g. post hoc messing about with birth certificates. (As distinct from allowing birth certificates to be replaced in the case of genuine errors.)
I have no idea whether the great majority of women would object to her/him/it using female loos. It might well depend on whether her physique is male or female: if she’s a big, strapping creature, much stronger and faster than nearly all women, I can see why women would have reservations.
I even go so far – ooh, radical – as to say I can see a case for inventing pronouns for such folk. Though I can see no case for the existence of such a pronoun to be used as an excuse for Starmer’s Stasi, and other Nazi-inclined people, to bully the population.
But the politicalisation and radicalisation of the topic must surely make the risk of an unhappy life for such people much greater.
Anyway, vocabulary. Setting aside such hard-luck cases, I propose to call trannies who haven’t even had their wedding tackle removed “female impersonators”. Those who have had their dangly bits excised would be “castrati” – a little approximate, I know, but good enough for government work.
I do actually know someone truly intersex. Know them vaguely but all the same. Has decided to be female and so dresses and hairstyles and so on – making the best of the hand dealt. Looks alarmingly like a 14 year old lad in a dress. Also, v bright, chatty, likeable and, well, what more can you ask of someone to have a drink with?
It might depend whether eyebrows would be raised at the sight of a middle-aged bloke having a drink in a pub with a 14 year old lad in a dress.
Ambrose had genitals that, as he puts it in the film, “fall outside of an arbitrary acceptable norm”. Doctors decided to operate on him as an infant, removing his testes and constructing a vagina. His parents were then advised to raise him as a daughter, and keep quiet about what had happened. He was told that he would need to take hormones when he was a teenager, and had further surgery to make his sexual organs appear more “female” as a young adult. But explanations were few and far between, and it was only when Ambrose sought out intersex groups that he was able to fully understand what had happened to him.
The course of action that his parents had been advised to follow brought Ambrose a great deal of misery – he never felt like a girl growing up, and it was a massive blow to learn that such huge decisions had been taken about his body before he could have a say in them.
Remember, the theory behind “trans kids” was formulated by the predatory paedophile Dr John Money, who claimed “gender” is a learned trait and that boys could be raised as girls and be none the wiser. He left suicides and molested children in his wake, but the Johns Hopkins Center for Transgender and Gender Expansive Health hasn’t been burned down yet.
All intersex are genetically somewhat male but incompletely physically developed as male. You got a (bit of) a Y chromosome in the mix, that is trying, sometimes incompletely effectively, to drive fetal development towards a male phenotype.
The hijacking of a set of actual, objectively diagnosable genetic conditions to justify bearded hulks prancing in frocks in women’s changing rooms is one of the more vile aspects of trans lobbyism.
Aye. From reading the excerpt, I understood that this person has normal XY chromosomes and also a condition wherein his body does not respond to the hormones that would make it outwardly masculine looking, but that he had male genitalia. So this person seemed to me like a normal genetic male but with a chemical processing disorder. I had thought “intersex” referred to people who had sex chromosome blends other than XX or XY, but I guess the definition has been broadened to the point where everything counts. I don’t understand the” male genitalia could cause cancer so needs to be lopped off” bit, and given the trans lobby’s corruption of medicine, I am also highly skeptical.
Maybe it’s a way to avoid testicular cancer and prostate cancer.
Oh, this is glorious:
Hitler’s DNA proves he really did have only one ball
https://archive.ph/jgCIH
The other isn’t in the Albert Hall then, but was Himmler really somewhat similar? And poor old Goebbels had no balls at all?