Comments on 10949

I don't think that's a fair comment, however, ortho's responses are radically out of touch with how this issue is discussed by people with more than an armchair knowledge of genetics and the specific syndrome in question.

I just find it silly because we are talking about judging a person's sex and gender based on diagnostic procedures that are only about 50 years old. It's a complication that only exists because of the routine adoption of karyotyping. Prior to the karyotype the news was that a woman couldn't have children because she was born with an incomplete reproductive system. Now all of a sudden, we have this diagnostic procedure that reveals some women with incomplete reproductive systems have an XY karyotype, and now the issue is "complex."

Orthogonality's responses are enlightening for revealing his own prejudices in this matter. Prejudices that apparently are not shared in medical journals that refer to patients with complete AIS using feminine nouns and pronouns.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:31 AM on January 4, 2006

And the comment was just deleted, proving this MeTa thread's uselessness.
posted by rxrfrx at 6:32 AM on January 4, 2006

No, it wasn't a fair AskMe comment which, for the record was "orthogonality, do you warn people before you have sex with them that you're secretly an asshole, or do you lie to them by omission? i think that, you know, ethically they have a right to know, otherwise you're no better than any other date rapist." Ortho was being pretty brusque but on-topic which could not be said for that particular comment.
posted by jessamyn at 6:32 AM on January 4, 2006

Ortho had it coming. His sanctimonious tone and adherence to strict black and white definitions of what makes a man a man only serve to show (again) that he lacks the open-mindedness to consider anybody's opinion other than his own. Not to mention the fact that he was dodging the question while passing judgement on the asker.
posted by Roger Dodger at 6:35 AM on January 4, 2006

orthogonality's original response, while... tangy, was fair comment and (as vacapinta pointed out) valuable as a sample of likely reaction. His further comments were completely unnecessary. AskMe is about providing answers, not defending your opinions against all comers.
posted by languagehat at 6:35 AM on January 4, 2006

ortho's responses are radically out of touch with how this issue is discussed by people with more than an armchair knowledge of genetics and the specific syndrome in question.

I doubt pollystark is planning to date geneticists exclusively. I'm sure that many people have only an armchair knowledge of her condition. I imagine that the opposing viewpoints displayed in the thread are probably a truer reflection of the attitudes she will encounter IRL than if everyone here was PC and sensitive, and therefore helpful to her.
posted by amro at 6:39 AM on January 4, 2006

Jassamyn has it right. Ortho's comment was pretty revealing about his personal prejustices, but was on topic. It, by itself, probably wasn't very helpful to the poster, but did reveal some of the attitude that the poster should be prepared to confront.

The insulting comment was out of line. It was off topic, and inflamatory. I'm just glat that it appreared that most people ignored ortho and went on to discuss the question.
posted by lester at 6:40 AM on January 4, 2006

languagehat: AskMe is about providing answers, not defending your opinions against all comers.

Another one that should be posted on a sign at the door.
posted by George_Spiggott at 6:41 AM on January 4, 2006

Perhaps Ortho has Emotional Insensitivity Syndrome, but his initial comment was perfectly on-topic.
posted by Rothko at 6:44 AM on January 4, 2006

For the record, I was pretty certain my opinion would be unpopular and "politically incorrect", in part because the question itself would be, to some degree, self-selecting.

(It's noteworthy that a condition that affects about 1 in 20000 persons attracted, out of 14 unique commenters, at least two who have the condition, and at least one who dated someone with the condition.)

And yes, you can complain that I'm "prejudiced", and even accuse me of things I didn't do, or you can play with various definitions of "female". (I was careful not to use any pronouns to refer to pollystark, pollystark may use whatever self-referents pollystark feels best.)

But that's not really the point: what pollystark shouldn't do is misrepresent in an area -- sexual identification -- which people take very seriously.

Pollystark knows it's misrepresentation: pollystark posted "but I can imagine that a few straight men might have a problem with being intimate with someone who has XY chromosomes, and I should think that most will need to process it", and pollystark should give those men the consideration of making an informed decision.

Look, I'm sorry pollystark has a very inconvenient birth defect, and I understand that's a trial for pollystark, but pollystark is still human, and I won't condescending lie and say, politically correctly, that that won't be a problem for some of pollystark's prospective lovers, or that pollystark's problem obviates pollystark's ethical duties to be up front with potential lovers.

To those of you who think it's not a problem, great for you, but unless you're the only ones sleeping with pollystark, what gives you the right to make the decision for the men who really are (unwittingly) sleeping with pollystark and may have real problems with that, if they knew the truth?
posted by orthogonality at 6:53 AM on January 4, 2006

I think languagehat nailed it. everyone knows: you go to askme to tell people they shouldn't lie about being genetically male, and you come to meta to flameout defending yourself.
posted by shmegegge at 6:58 AM on January 4, 2006

what gives you the right to make the decision for the men who really are (unwittingly) sleeping with pollystark

*wakes up*

snrrgghhx... huh? wait... you're pollystark?! I'm sorry, I thought I was sleeping with someone else. sorry about that.
posted by shmegegge at 7:01 AM on January 4, 2006

I understand that's a trial for pollystark, but pollystark is still human, and I won't condescending lie

Is asking for a little tact and gentleness be too much? Given that we've ascertained pollystark is human.
posted by CunningLinguist at 7:03 AM on January 4, 2006

amro: I doubt pollystark is planning to date geneticists exclusively. I'm sure that many people have only an armchair knowledge of her condition. I imagine that the opposing viewpoints displayed in the thread are probably a truer reflection of the attitudes she will encounter IRL than if everyone here was PC and sensitive, and therefore helpful to her.

And I doubt that pollystark is planning on dating gynecologists exclusively either, which I think is what it would take for someone to figure it out.

I see a big difference between saying that one would react badly to that kind of a revelation, and presenting one's idiosyncratic views as fact with the line, "Perhaps you're unclear on the condition." If you are going to lecture someone else about being unclear on the condition, at least do some leg work to get it right, or STFU.

ortho: For the record, I was pretty certain my opinion would be unpopular and "politically incorrect", in part because the question itself would be, to some degree, self-selecting.

It's not about being popular or incorrect. It's about fact vs. falsehood. Truth vs. lies. It's about making multiple claims about a condition that are not accepted by the informed scientific consensus of the people who treat that condition. And when you make unsupportable claims, you should be called out on those claims.

...I won't condescending lie and say, politically correctly, that that won't be a problem for some of pollystark's prospective lovers, or that pollystark's problem obviates pollystark's ethical duties to be up front with potential lovers.

I don't see much disagreement that honesty is the best policy, nor is there much disagreement that it might be a problem for some people. What people are disagreeing with is your choice to lecture others with an opinion that is badly informed, and incorrect.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:10 AM on January 4, 2006

CunningLinguist writes "Is asking for a little tact and gentleness be too much?"

Have you read pollystark's previous AskMefi questions? Sure, I'd like to be gentle, but I also wanted to get across my point that it's unethical to do what pollystark did.

And pollystark is (not for the first time) perhaps trying to justify playing fast and loose with other people's feelings.
posted by orthogonality at 7:10 AM on January 4, 2006

orthogonality: "...but unless you're the only ones sleeping with pollystark, what gives you the right to make the decision for the men who really are (unwittingly) sleeping with pollystark and may have real problems with that, if they knew the truth?"

And what gives you the right to take an aggressive, hectoring tone towards pollystark, and use comparisons and examples (AIDS, chihuahuas) that could easily be seen as insulting to her?

The problem isn't that your opinion is 'politically incorrect' (I agree that pollystark ought to inform her partners, and I'm a steaming heap of lefty PC bibble), the problem is that you sounded so very angry about the situation.

~~Wisecracks don't~~ Vitriol doesn't help people
find answers.
posted by jack_mo at 7:16 AM on January 4, 2006

KirkJobSluder writes "Truth vs. lies. It's about making multiple claims about a condition that are not accepted by the informed scientific consensus of the people who treat that condition. And when you make unsupportable claims, you should be called out on those claims."

I'm sorry Kirk, but what exactly is the lie?

Pollystark acknowledged (in the question) having XY chromosomes. I said pollystark is genetically male. Where's the lie?

I said pollystark has or had testes; pollystark confirmed that. Where's the lie?

"Lie" is a pretty strong accusation Kirk. So is "unsupportable claim". Where's the lie, Kirk?

Or is just a matter that I didn't use the civilly inaccurate euphemisms you'd prefer to see used?
posted by orthogonality at 7:17 AM on January 4, 2006

I suppose calling him an asshole is on-topic here though?
posted by fleacircus at 7:19 AM on January 4, 2006

I doubt that pollystark is planning on dating gynecologists exclusively either, which I think is what it would take for someone to figure it out.

Well, she does specifically say in her question that "it is reasonably obvious to all but the most inexperienced that my vaginal canal is different from other girls'."
posted by Gator at 7:21 AM on January 4, 2006

Ok, look I wrote "date", but I didn't mean I was planning to "talk" to her or anything like that.

Indeed, in the ideal situation, all she'd be saying is "mmmph umpph mmmph ack."

Who cares how she comes to conclusions?
posted by If I Had An Anus at 7:22 AM on January 4, 2006

I think Kirk was referring to this exchange:

orthogonality: Perhaps you're unclear on the condition: pollystark, like all normal males, has one X chromosome and one Y chromosome. Females have no Y chromosome, and two X chromosomes.

I don't know of many people who actually work with genetics, physiology or development who would agree with this assessment. Male/Female is a related set of phenotypes, not genotypes. The general consensus is that sexual dimorphism in humans defaults to female in the absence of an androgen surge, and receptors for those androgens.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:36 AM PST on January 4 [!]

You're trying to come across as an authority with statements like "Perhaps you're unclear.." and "the definition of male is.." but are making misrepresentations. If you're not lying, then you are woefully misinformed. Which is it?
posted by vacapinta at 7:25 AM on January 4, 2006

I see a big difference between saying that one would react badly to that kind of a revelation, and presenting one's idiosyncratic views as fact with the line, "Perhaps you're unclear on the condition." If you are going to lecture someone else about being unclear on the condition, at least do some leg work to get it right, or STFU.

Agreed. But I still think that she is likely encounter men for whom no facts will be enough to dissuade from the belief that sleeping with pollystark = sleeping with a man. Ignorant, absolutely. But probably an unfortunate fact of life for her.
posted by amro at 7:28 AM on January 4, 2006

Oh, DanOStuporStar/Anus, I was wondering when you'd show up riding your hobby horse to jihad. I'll give you this, even though you're not so good at telling the difference between joking and seriousness, you're excellent at holding a grudge. (It amazes me you get anything else done, what with your knuckles so white holding that grudge so tight, but fortunately, that's your problem, not mine.)
posted by orthogonality at 7:31 AM on January 4, 2006

ortho, just to be clear, there's nothing at all that is ethical about your argument. You've made all sorts of assertions but I don't see a yard stick. What if pollystark had been raped in the past? Or sexually molested as a child? Is she required to disclose such personal trauma to all her potential partners, even casual flings, because they might have qualms or prejudices about being with damaged goods? Really, people have all sorts of intimacy issues. At what point, exactly, do you require such disclosure? Why do you draw the line at AIS and not somewhere else? Does your ethical framework address these issues or is it really just your own personal prejudices and taboos that lead you condemn pollystark?

For a lot of people, disclosure only becomes an imperative when potential harm is involved. This makes a lot of sense. Most people recognize that human prejudice and ignorance is fundamentally contrary to human freedom. Requiring everybody to disclose everything to potential partners (or anybody else) becomes little more than a way to enforce various prejudices. Among consenting adults in a relationship the assumption is made that each one will reveal themselves to the other to the extent that the other returns the favor. Because personal issues leave each one of us so vulnerable it's agreed that they can only be disclosed in environments of trust and mutual respect. (Indeed, this is pretty much the definition of relationship as far as I'm concerned.) In cases where these issues pose no danger to their partners then, in the interests of individual freedom, there can be no imperative to require them to disclose such issues.

The real problem with your behavior in the green--and I personally found it pretty repulsive--was not your "edginess" or your brave willingness to stick it to the PC establishment and speak out on the internet. (Though bravo for doing so. It's rare to find such actions these days.) It was the combination of your aggressive tone with your simplistic, stupid logic that completely fails to address both the scientific and ethical complexities of the question. Tell yourself whatever you need to in order to feel good about yourself, just try to understand why people think you're an asshole.
posted by nixerman at 7:37 AM on January 4, 2006

AskMe is about providing answers, not defending your opinions against all comers.

Maybe. But AskMe is also about providing answers, not flogging anyone who disagrees with MeFi dogma. And since any comment straying from MeFi groupthink seems to provoke at least two smarmy, ad hominem replies, it's a bit disingenuous to scold orthogonality for coming back over the top.

I agree with ortho; and even if I didn't, his answers would still be representative of many, many people in this world. So let's clear something up: When someone asks a question about how a rare condition will be perceived, or how she should disclose delicate personal information, it is not trolling to suggest that the entire world is not the den of back-slapping tolerance that comprises MetaFilter.
posted by cribcage at 7:44 AM on January 4, 2006

my post wasn't about calling him an asshole. it was about how ridiculous it is to demand that someone else confess to you, prior to sex, a condition that based on your subjective judgement makes that person unfit to fuck.

i've reposted my thoughts to the thread without using the words "asshole" or "date-rapist", but it's worth noting that orthagonality first compared pollystark to a date rapist when he said that what she was doing was deceiving people into sex, analogous to giving someone a "ruffie" (i'm assuming he meant 'roofie', aka rohypnol, a date-rape drug).

that's what i was referring to, and I don't see how my facetious comment was more out of line than his serious one. it was no less reasonable.
posted by crabintheocean at 7:45 AM on January 4, 2006

nixerman writes "the combination of your aggressive tone "

Perhaps my tone was aggressive: I saw pollystark's question as the third time pollystark was looking to askMefi to validate behavior pollystark knows is ethically questionable. (And give me some credit: you know that I very well knew that I was going to be taking quite a bit of flack for my opinion, no matter how sweetly I expressed it; and that some of the responses would be PC double-talk about how XY doesn't mean male. Knowing that influenced my decision to present it perhaps, uh, starkly.)
posted by orthogonality at 7:46 AM on January 4, 2006

"New rule: All comments MUST be debated in Metatalk to ascertain whether they are appropriate or not." Fair rule?
posted by Plutor at 7:59 AM on January 4, 2006

ortho, regardless of what influenced you, I think you owe an apology to pollystark. The content of your answer is fine as far as the green goes (though, again, I'd strongly disagree with your view of genetics), but I think it's presentation, particularly the roofie and AIDs comment, was pretty over the top.
posted by nixerman at 8:02 AM on January 4, 2006

Pollystark acknowledged (in the question) having XY chromosomes. I said pollystark is genetically male. Where's the lie?

That's the lie. People with Androgen insensitivity syndrome are not genetically male. People with 5-alpha-reductase deficiency are genetically male with female genatalia. People with AIS are female with an XY karyotype.
posted by Jairus at 8:07 AM on January 4, 2006

and that some of the responses would be PC double-talk about how XY doesn't mean male

That's not pc doubletalk, ortho, it's a (scientifically) well supported statement, which several people have already pointed out to you.

Your originally reaction and comments IMO are completely valid, but to keep stating "XY = male" all the time is just wrong.
posted by gaspode at 8:16 AM on January 4, 2006

ortho: I'm sorry Kirk, but what exactly is the lie?

Pollystark acknowledged (in the question) having XY chromosomes. I said pollystark is genetically male. Where's the lie?

Well, lie is perhaps a bit strong, (although no more strong than your posts.) But I think here you are misrepresenting what you wrote in a big way because it's pretty clear that you are not only saying that polystark has an XY karyotype, but that polystark is really male in terms of phenotype or acculturalization. "The definition of male is having one Y chromosome and one X chromosome. That pollystark's mutation masks or hides that maleness doesn't make pollystark female, anymore than a chihuahua's mutations make it a rat. Yes, a chihuahua looks like a rat, but genetically it's a dog."

Or is just a matter that I didn't use the civilly inaccurate euphemisms you'd prefer to see used?

I don't see it as civilly inaccurate euphemisms. It's a matter of using language that accurately describes the genetic models involved. Male/female in medical terms are sets of phenotypes. XX and XY are karyotypes. Most people who study genetics realize that there is not always a 1:1 mapping of phenotypes to karyotypes (or genotypes)*. Consistently in the medical literature, patients with cAIS are referred to as women, girls, or presenting female phenotypes. Sometimes ambiguity is involved in pAIS.

This isn't a case of civil inaccuracy, but observational pragmatism. There is no way to casually distinguish patients with cAIS from XX females, with most anatomical differences internal to the abdomen. Prior to the development of karyotyping, women with cAIS were just diagnosed as anatomically infertile.

How is it PC double-talk when people with cAIS have been treated as female, and were accepted as female before karyotyping led to its discovery in the 1960s? It's not as if people with cAIS were called "male" at any point in history. Women with cAIS no doubt existed in 1905. Why are they suddenly "men" in 2005? This ad hoc revision strikes me as being a great example of PC double-talk.

* As an example, while most people with Down's Syndrome have a 21 trisomy karyotype, a minority do not.

On preview: Jarius nailed it.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:18 AM on January 4, 2006

"And give me some credit: you know that I very well knew that I was going to be taking quite a bit of flack for my opinion, no matter how sweetly I expressed it; and that some of the responses would be PC double-talk about how XY doesn't mean male. Knowing that influenced my decision to present it perhaps, uh, starkly."

So, wait... You knew that you were going to have people who disagreed with you so you preemptively phrased things in an inflamitory manner? Way to go, asshole. Instead of attempting to make the most convincing case for your opinion, you intentionally posted something aggressive because you thought it was unpopular. Wow, that's really respectful of the community there, genius.

Further, your characterization of gender identity issues as "PC double-talk" is both stupid and wrong. The comment might have been out of line for AskMe, but here it's dead-on: Do you tell people you're an asshole before you fuck them, or do you just figure it's self-evident?
Your argument that there are people who might not accept Pollystark's condition is analogous to arguing that she should disclose that she's an octoroon in case she's sleeping with a racist. Your prejudice is your problem, and honestly, she'd be right to withhold it from you for a night of casual sex.
posted by klangklangston at 8:21 AM on January 4, 2006

Too much y and not enough x. That explains a great deal.
posted by peacay at 8:49 AM on January 4, 2006

I had a long porcine voice lesson kind of message written out, but I realized it's pointless. Klangklang says it succinctly, though a little more delicately than I would. When I read your message, particularly your later insistence that this is an either-or chromosomal thing and not a 1/64th thing, I can't help but hear "Fullblood, 1/2 or 1/64, a nigger is a nigger."

Maybe you think it's all PC gender sensitivity claptrap, but your repeated chanting of 'testes' and insistence that someone disclose what chromosomal combination they'll be rogering when they won't even bother learning her last name makes you sound like a homophobic jerk to a number of us. Maybe you don't care and maybe it won't motivate you to an iota of introspection, but you at least shouldn't be shocked.
posted by phearlez at 9:28 AM on January 4, 2006

oooo, the tightness! what's her phone number?
posted by quonsar at 10:02 AM on January 4, 2006

I wasn't going to say this, since I thought it was probably inappropriate, but since quansar broke down that barrier:

pollystark posts the juiciest AskMeta questions of any poster, hands down. Keep 'em coming, girl!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:06 AM on January 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

I'd just like to say that it's bullshit that ortho's comment got deleted. Also that quonsar's last comment nearly made me choke.
posted by Decani at 10:09 AM on January 4, 2006

the quansar function behaves similarly to the quasar function, excepting that it emits pomo radio messages of maximum length len.
posted by cortex at 10:13 AM on January 4, 2006

Oh wait... you mean the date rapist comment got deleted, not ortho's?

That's bullshit too.
posted by Decani at 10:17 AM on January 4, 2006

Looks like orthogonality's first comment has been excised now as well.
/gotta_clench_sumthin
posted by If I Had An Anus at 10:20 AM on January 4, 2006

We need to clear up a misconception. It is clear that most people posting here do not have a background in genetics:

Having XY chromosones, as in this case, means you are genetically male. Yes, it does.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001180.htm

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition=androgeninsensitivitysyndrome

Need more?

I absolutely destest people passing judgment on others based on their own self-satisfied ignorance.
posted by Justinian at 10:33 AM on January 4, 2006

Game, set, match. quonsar wins.

In an ideal world few or none would be so hyperconcerned about the genetic, birth, or apparent gender of whomever it was they found attractive, or whether or not it made them teh gay, or with psychosexual labels in general.

Eh, I don't know what I'm trying to say. Go gender ambiguity!

Chicks with dicks; Boys with tits: email available in profile.
posted by loquacious at 10:33 AM on January 4, 2006

ThePinkSuperhero writes "pollystark posts the juiciest AskMeta questions of any poster, hands down. "
I think lazyville and P_G have that title, even if it wasn't true.
posted by Mitheral at 10:38 AM on January 4, 2006

i got an angry inch
posted by cortex at 10:43 AM on January 4, 2006

Ortho's comments were over the top. His responders comments were also over the top... and based on self-righteous ignorance of genetics.

I know which bothers me more.
posted by Justinian at 10:46 AM on January 4, 2006

Hedwig - is that you?
posted by ericb at 10:55 AM on January 4, 2006

It should probably be mentioned that the answer to the really important pollystark question seems to be: She got the Les Paul.

Good for her.
posted by Grangousier at 11:00 AM on January 4, 2006

Midwest Midnight Checkout Queens Repuhzent!
posted by cortex at 11:00 AM on January 4, 2006

Quonsar always wins, doesn't he?
posted by keijo at 11:01 AM on January 4, 2006

"Ortho's comments were over the top. His responders comments were also over the top... and based on self-righteous ignorance of genetics."

Bullshit. She's a girl, she lives as a girl, she looks like a girl, and the only way you can tell she's not is that her pussy's not as big or deep as everyone else's? The genetics is a fuckin' canard, Justinian. And your protestations of special knowledge are thin and worthless.
You've yet to demonstrate harm that she's causing. It's not an infectious disease. It's not anything dangerous to her partner.
"Oh, but what if I'm creeped out?"
Well, ask her first and if you don't like the answer, don't fuck her. But don't make it her problem that you're hung up on a distinction without a difference.
posted by klangklangston at 11:36 AM on January 4, 2006

I don't have any fucking special knowledge. I have the fucking National Institute of Health.
posted by Justinian at 11:39 AM on January 4, 2006

The Five Sexes

(...and I thought Triodes comment was pretty well done.)
posted by StickyCarpet at 11:41 AM on January 4, 2006

Justinian, the problem is that while you're correct that AIS is starts as genetic male, they certainly can develop into biological women. Would you call (rumored AIS "males") Jamie Lee Curtis or Cindy Crawford men? That's where all the outrage is coming from.. -Bonehead

To many people, "genetic (male|female)" = "biological (male|female". I have no idea if there is a formal definition of biological sex that disproves this (I imagine so), but to many (most?) people I would say the genetic makeup is their definition of what makes a person "biologically" male or female. So, by this definition, I certainly would call those actresses male if they indeed have the XY chromosome.

Bullshit. She's a girl, she lives as a girl, she looks like a girl -klangklangston

The AIS support site mentioned in the thread noted that the condition was identical to a post-op transsexual. Who also "lives as a girl, looks like a girl." Is that also a "distinction without a difference?" Judging from popular opinion, I'd say it's a pretty big difference to many, if not most.
posted by RikiTikiTavi at 11:55 AM on January 4, 2006

Yep. I gave up on the post-op transsexual comparison because people already have their minds made up and will not listen to reason or facts. But since you brought it up; it is an apt comparison.
posted by Justinian at 12:00 PM on January 4, 2006

To respond to my earlier post (should have been on the referred article, not this thread), OmieWise's comment is a pretty good response to my earlier questions.
posted by RikiTikiTavi at 12:01 PM on January 4, 2006

Look, first let me apologize if I was over the top; honestly, I expected there'd be a lot of enabling of not being up front about this, and I wanted to draw a line in the sand. But perhaps I should have tried harder to be gentle.

No, let's read the question closely: pollystark tell us that pollystark's genitals are apparently "different" to "all but the most inexperienced". And pollystark, to pollystark's credit, acknowledges that "a few straight men might have a problem with being intimate with someone who has XY chromosomes, and I should think that most will need to process it"

So we can't make they argument that "what the guys don't know won't hurt them" -- unless they're "the most inexperienced", they're going to realize something isn't normal.

And if they do notice, they "might have a problem with being intimate with" pollystark, or have regrets afterward.

So it's patently unfair to the men, who might find intimacy with pollystark to be traumatic, to not let them know what they're in for, so they can make an informed choice.

It's in that vein that I made the analogy to STDs --- not that pollystark's problem is communicable, but in the vein that even if you were assured that you could have safe sex with an STD carrier ("I'm not having outbreaks now", "my viral load is low", "we'll use a condom") , you might still not want to take the risk. Just as there's a physical risk with STDs, no matter how safe the sex, there's a psychological risk (for some heterosexual men) in having relations with what pollystark describes as "XY" and the National Institutes of Health describes as "genetically male".

And just as an STD carrier should respect his partner enough to let the partner make an informed choice, so should a person, like pollystark, with AIS.
posted by orthogonality at 12:01 PM on January 4, 2006

Justinian writes "I don't have any fucking special knowledge. I have the fucking National Institute of Health."

I think you're missing the entire point of the arguement. Certainly, someone with an XY karyotype is "genetically male"; no one is disputing that. The crux of the argument is your implied equivalence between "genetically male" and "male".

RikiTikiTavi writes "To many people, 'genetic (male|female)' = 'biological (male|female)'. "

Really? How do these people discover the chromosomal makeup of those they interact with on a daily basis? I would say that, for all but medical doctors treating a patient, apparently female = female.

You both have a point, but I don't think that the karyotype is the trump card you're making it out to be. Gender (social and biological) is more complex than that.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:03 PM on January 4, 2006

i got an angry inch - cortex

Oh, poor baby!
posted by dejah420 at 12:03 PM on January 4, 2006

Bonehead: By the way, in re: Cindy Crawford. I'm not sure where you get the idea that Crawford has AIS. She has been pregnant and given birth to a child. Um?
posted by Justinian at 12:03 PM on January 4, 2006

Mr roboto: Yes, it is vastly more complex than that. I'm not arguing that anyone should or should not have sex with pollystark. I'm not even arguing that pollystark "is male". I'm specifically arguing that it IS MORE COMPLEX than that.

I'm arguing that they should be able to give INFORMED consent. I don't understand why my position is difficult to understand.
posted by Justinian at 12:06 PM on January 4, 2006

Justinian: Well, actually I really do have more than a casual background in genetics, actually having done a tad bit of actual laboratory research before deciding that it was not something I wished to spend the rest of my life doing. Pardon me, when I was doing my studies cAIS was used as a nice example case that the relationships between karyotypes and phenotypes are sometimes all that simple. But the links you posted don't really help much containing the following:

"As a result, the individual has some or all of the physical characteristics of a woman, despite having the genetic makeup of a man."

But you might also want to get out of FAQ land and actually look what *gasp* actuall practicioners and researchers have no say, for example, in this little ditty from the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Vol. 86, No. 9 4151-4160

CAIS is differently defined. Griffin et al. (5) define CAIS as completely female external genitalia, paucity of axillary and pubic hair, and absent Wolffian duct derivatives. Quigley (6) defines CAIS as completely female external genitalia without pubic hair, but remnants of Wolffian duct derivatives may be found. The presence of any amount of pubic hair is held as evidence of some degree of androgen responsiveness and thus classified as PAIS (7). In the classification of Sinnecker et al. (4), CAIS is a female phenotype with scant pubic and axillairy hair (type 5a) or a female phenotype with absence of any androgen-dependent structures, such as pubic and/or axillary hair (type 5b). No comment is made on the development of Wolffian duct derivatives.

This study includes both participants with cAIS and pAIS

Or The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Vol. 85, No. 8 2664-2669

We have assessed by questionnaire and medical examination the physical and psychosexual status of 14 women with documented complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS). We have also determined participant knowledge of CAIS as well as opinion of medical and surgical treatment. As a whole, secondary sexual development of these women was satisfactory, as judged by both participants and physicians. In general, most women were satisfied with their psychosexual development and sexual function. Factors reported to contribute to dissatisfaction were sexual abuse in one case and marked obesity in another. All of the women who participated were satisfied with having been raised as females, and none desired a gender reassignment. Although not perfect, the medical, surgical, and psychosexual outcomes for women with CAIS were satisfactory; however, specific ways for improving long-term treatment of this population were identified.

Or Archives of Disease in Childhood, 1997;77:305-309

The importance of karyotyping girls with inguinal hernias is confirmed, and further attention should be given to genetic counselling for families of complete AIS patients.

Or the title of this article: . Fertility and Sterility, VOL 80, NO. 1, JULY 2003 (PDF)

Sexual function in women with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome

All of the above came up in the top 20 google scholar scholar search using the keywords "cais androgen treatment." Not by using any gender specific keywords. In looking through these articles, while some abstracts contain the generic words "patient," none used masucline nouns or pronouns in talking about people with cAIS and with pAIS masculine nouns were used in cases where the children were given gender reassignment surgery and raised as boys.

Personally, I absolutely destest people passing judgment on others based on half-assed google searches through secondary encyclopedia sources. Especially after I have supported my claims using links to primary materials.

I don't have any fucking special knowledge. I have the fucking National Institute of Health.

Well, I do consider my fucking knowledge special having spent a few years in the lab to get it. And I have a fucking research library of primary sources I can dump on the next person who claims I'm talking from a position of ignorance.

Don't bring a knife to a gunfight kid.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:06 PM on January 4, 2006

Now why couldn't you had given an answer like that first? It's reasonable and well stated?
posted by Roger Dodger at 12:09 PM on January 4, 2006

Those articles don't say what you are implying they say. Nothing in them contradicts the idea that these women are GENETICALLY male. If you actually read for comprehension, you'll see that I was specifically addressing that fact because people were arguing with orthogonality's statement that pollystark was genetically male.

Yes, I'm sure we're all supposed to be impressed with your search skills. Too bad those impressive journal articles have no bearing on the point I made.

You and I both know what PHENOTYPE means. It is not the same as genotype, which was the freakin' point.
posted by Justinian at 12:12 PM on January 4, 2006

Thanks, StickyCarpet. I was an hour late to work on account of composing that.
posted by Triode at 12:15 PM on January 4, 2006

Would you call (rumored AIS 'male') Jamie Lee Curtis [a man]?

Yeah, though probably not to his face.
posted by underer at 12:15 PM on January 4, 2006

And Justinian: Your know-it-all attitude is not appreciated. It's clear to me that the MeFi members who you "detest" and refer to as "ignorant" are fully aware of the nature of AIS (and that, in many cases, their understanding is deeper and more subtle than your own). I've seen you go off half-cocked like this before. It's unbecoming.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:17 PM on January 4, 2006

Justinian, you and Ortho are being ignorant. You're being sophomoric in a very interesting way.

Prior to modern genetics, almost the entire world would have defined Pollystark as 100% "female". Sex was determined entirely from phenotype. Now you and Ortho, and many others, feel like sex is determined entirely by genotype. But that's ignorant of developmental biology.

Firstly, the genotype doesn't entirely control phenotype, there's all sorts of other environmental variables that determine a developmental outcome. There's all sorts of things that happen in the womb that affect the outcome. The ultra-strong genetic determinism stance is refuted by, for example, your calico cat. (cc:)

Secondly, even putting aside external factors, the fact is that sexual differentiation is a complicated developmental process initially determined by what we might call the primary sex differentiation genetics but controlled by cascade of interelated developmental physiological processes that are determined both by other genetics and environment. That "Y" chromosome does not absolutely determine outcome—if there is some other genetic abnormality that, in essence, deactivates what the "Y" chromosome would otherwise have done, then almost the entire body is affected developmentally in profound ways. (And, not incidentally, this is where I part ways with the "sex is socially determined" crowd.)

Actual physiological differentiation throughout the entire body is the most reasonable way to determine sex for most purposes. Someone said in the thread that they thought that less than 50% of people would know about this condition or any other intersexed condition and that the sex chromosomes determines it for them. That's half true. Less than 50% will know about this because much less than 50% even knows about the sex chromosomal differentiation. And, to them, pollystark is female, indisputably.

For other purposes, such as a context which is entirely reproductive, it wouldn't make much sense to determine that pollystark is "male".

And if I were looking for inherent sexual differentiation as it matters (non-reproductive) functionally, I'd look to brain differentiation for the determination and then factor in the rest of the physiology. But not merely the genetics.

I say your viewpoint is "sophomoric" because it stinks of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". You know enough about genetics to know of genetic sex differentiation. You don't seem to know anything about sex differentiation as a big portion of both developmental and functional biology—which, of course, is where sexual differentiation really matters—and so you take a stand based upon a laughably willfully ignortant point of view. You know what it's most like? It's most like the "if any drop of blood is Jewish" genetics of the Nazi's. It's a bizarre essentialism that is pseudo-scientific. It's not reasonable. It has the veneer of a modern, empirical, and disciplined point of view. But it's not. It's simplistic in the worst way.

On preview: And what KirkJobSluder said.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:18 PM on January 4, 2006

The AIS support site mentioned in the thread noted that the condition was identical to a post-op transsexual.

No, it says identical to a post-op transsexual who started hormone therapy prior to the onset of puberty, a very big distinction, appearance-wise.

It's all fucking irrelevant anyway. The fact is that an unknown number of people would be skeeved out to find this out post-sexual encounter, but NOT HARMED or even POTENTIALLY HARMED in ANY OTHER WAY - making all STD comparisons complete fucking bullshit.

Just a hundred years ago it would be considered just as horrible for a light-skinned black person to mingle in white society under pretense of being something other than a dirty negro. Go pick up some of Nella Larsen's writing about it. It's exactly the same thing - some human interaction that they'd enter into perfectly happily and enjoy suddenly would turn horrible for them if they discovered something they had no way to know from the encounter.

If you're going fuck random people you don't know, you're going to not know a lot of things about them. The fact that a few of those things tweak common prejudices is your problem, not theirs.
posted by phearlez at 12:21 PM on January 4, 2006

"you'll see that I was specifically addressing that fact because people were arguing with orthogonality's statement that pollystark was genetically male."

I'm sorry, I don't see anyone claiming that pollystark was genetically female. I see people using the unadorned words "female" and "male" and you taking issue.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:23 PM on January 4, 2006

"If you actually read for comprehension, you'll see that I was specifically addressing that fact because people were arguing with orthogonality's statement that pollystark was genetically male."

Well, except that wasn't the contention, Mr. Comprehension.
posted by klangklangston at 12:25 PM on January 4, 2006

KirkJobSluder writes "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight kid."

Kirk, do you have a dog in this fight? Why are you taking this so personally?

KirkJobSluder writes "In looking through these articles, while some abstracts contain the generic words 'patient,' none used masculine nouns or pronouns in talking about people with cAIS and with pAIS masculine nouns were used in cases where the children were given gender reassignment surgery and raised as boys."

Sure, I'm unsurprised that clinical studies would refer to patients using the pronouns that reflect the gender roles the patients assume in "real life".

And that's all very sensitive to the patients, but it's polite euphemism that doesn't speak to the genetics or the standard understanding of most non-scientists. An XY genotype is commonly referred to as "male", regardless of phenotypic effects. Clinicians will refer to the patient's assumed gender role. John Money also called his patients "girls", after he'd snipped off their penises. John Money is generally considered a dangerous charlatan today, but was considered a mainstream scientist in the 70s when he claimed that all gender roles were malleable.

And non-scientists might see a cAIS person as male or female, depending on any number of factors: genes, appearance, the extent that appearance was created or is maintained by surgical or medical intervention. Telling us about how you did some post-grad work in a lab before you decided not to continue just makes you one more person with an opinion about what defines gender.

I been careful not to express any opinion about pollystark's gender; only that there is sufficient ambiguity (much depending on ideological feeling) about pollystark's gender that pollystark has an obligation to allow potential partners informed consent.
posted by orthogonality at 12:27 PM on January 4, 2006

Ethereal Bligh writes "I'm sorry, I don't see anyone claiming that pollystark was genetically female."

He might be talking about Jairus, who was actually making a rather subtle argument. Which apparently went entirely over Justinian's head.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:28 PM on January 4, 2006

I can't believe how many of you doucebags are pissing all over the AskMe question rather than just keeping this here. Un-fucking-believable. I can only hope a number of you on both sides of this argument get nice cozy time-outs since you won't get the kidney punch you really deserve.
posted by phearlez at 12:35 PM on January 4, 2006

Ethereal Bligh writes "Actual physiological differentiation throughout the entire body is the most reasonable way to determine sex for most purposes."

That's your opinion, not science.

Reasonable for what purposes? Is "actual physiological differentiation" the best way to determine what someone with cAIS looks like? Probably. You win!

But wait! Is "actual physiological differentiation" the best way to determine whether someone with cAIS can bear children? Nope! someone with cAIS can't bear children (but can produce increasingly defective sperm)! Will you argue that the type of germ cells produced aren't important?

I respect your opinion, but I don't share it. cAIS is inherently ambiguous: a genetic male with female appearance.

mr_roboto writes "He might be talking about Jairus, who was actually making a rather subtle argument. Which apparently went entirely over Justinian's head."

I don't see Justinian making ad hominem attacks here. I see a lot of personal attacks being made against him. Why? Why can't those of you invoking "science" remain dispassionate? It makes me think we're really having a political, ideological argument that comes down to "intersex empowerment".
posted by orthogonality at 12:37 PM on January 4, 2006

orthogonality writes "I don't see Justinian making ad hominem attacks here. "

I think this post is the worst offender. It's not awful, but the language ("absolutely detest", "self-satisfied ignorance") and attitude ("It is clear that most people posting here do not have a background in genetics.") are pretty obnoxious. They invite a rather vitriolic response.

I think you've been completely reasonable and respectful, on the other hand.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:44 PM on January 4, 2006

Ethereal Bligh writes "Someone said in the thread that they thought that less than 50% of people would know about this condition or any other intersexed condition and that the sex chromosomes determines it for them. That's half true. Less than 50% will know about this because much less than 50% even knows about the sex chromosomal differentiation. And, to them, pollystark is female, indisputably."

That was me, and the reason I was so confident about about the less than half is for the reasons you stated. My only fear was the existance of a Lou Gehrig==ALS analog for AIS that meant every sports crazed Olympic follower knows about AIS even if I hadn't heard about it.

Even with all that has been posted on both sides I still think pollystark should inform her potential partners before getting jiggy with them. Mind you I can't imagine sleeping with anyone I only met that day so maybe I'm just uptight.
posted by Mitheral at 12:44 PM on January 4, 2006

Yes, I got a little upset. Because people were getting all hostile to orthogonality and going way over the top. In retrospect, I should have let him take care of himself.

But anway, Jairus said:

"That's the lie. People with Androgen insensitivity syndrome are not genetically male."

I didn't miss Jairus' point. But clearly I was responding to someone claiming it was a "lie" to say that pollystark was genetically male. It is not a lie. It is the truth. It is clearly incomplete and not the only thing that matters, but it is untrue to say that no one was arguing that pollystark was not genetically male.
posted by Justinian at 12:52 PM on January 4, 2006

Have you read pollystark's previous AskMefi questions? Sure, I'd like to be gentle, but I also wanted to get across my point that it's unethical to do what pollystark did.

I can completely understand Ortho's point here.. Has EVERYONE read her previous comments?

Theres a obvious problem here.. Shes British (I'm assuming by the use of the currency symbol in her previous posts), she wants to learn guitar, and she has complex relationships with the people around her..
That changes everything!!!

sweet god.. Grasp at straws much?
posted by JonnyRotten at 12:56 PM on January 4, 2006

I think it is telling that Pollystark herself identifies as intersex. That's an important piece of information for a potential partner, and I don't understand how people can dismiss it so casually.

Anyway, if anyone wants to disagree with me, feel free and I'd be happy to discuss it. If you simply want to talk about me being a little obnoxious in my first post, I'll just apologize for being a little obnoxious and we can skip that part and get to the imporant bits.
posted by Justinian at 1:01 PM on January 4, 2006

This is great. Can anybody play?
posted by Pressed Rat at 1:24 PM on January 4, 2006

crabintheocean writes "If you have a prejudice that might keep you from wanting to sleep with someone, it's on you to enforce it, by asking for the information you want to make your decision. It's not anyone else's problem but your own.

"I asked before -- should someone whose long-ago ancestor was a member of a race that some people don't like be required to disclose that fact to everyone they have sex with, because their partners might not otherwise know?"

I'm trying to imagine dating under crabintheocean's contraints:

Squicky: do you have AIS?
Potential Squicker: Huh? What is that?
S: (spends 10 minutes explaining a 1:20K chance)
PS: Ah no.
S: Are you a post op trans sexual?
PS: No
S: Are you a pedophile?
PS: What? No. (starts backing away slowly) (stops, caught like a gawker on the highway) What's with all the wierd questions?
S: Well this guy on the net said it's up to me to to make sure my potential one night stands wouldn't squick me out as they are under no obligation to reveal 1 in 20K stuff on there own.
posted by Mitheral at 1:26 PM on January 4, 2006

Because people were getting all hostile to orthogonality and going way over the top.

I'm curious, did you see orthogonality's deleted comment?

(Mitheral makes me laugh.)
posted by If I Had An Anus at 1:29 PM on January 4, 2006

Justinian: Those articles don't say what you are implying they say. Nothing in them contradicts the idea that these women are GENETICALLY male. If you actually read for comprehension, you'll see that I was specifically addressing that fact because people were arguing with orthogonality's statement that pollystark was genetically male.

Which to me, seems to be a pretty bad misrepresentation of the entire argument. If you had been reading for comprehension, ortho has not been arguing just about genetic maleness, but arguing that genetic maleness has more importance than just a karyotype. In other words, someone who has an XY karyotype is male regardless of phenotype. I've been arguing that the research on cAIS takes phenotype into account. If you don't get that this is the core of the dispute, please don't accuse others of ignorance.

Too bad those impressive journal articles have no bearing on the point I made.

You and I both know what PHENOTYPE means. It is not the same as genotype, which was the freakin' point.

In which case, it's fatuous because I don't think anyone you accused of ignorance disagrees on this. I think that ortho does disagree on this however.

ortho: Kirk, do you have a dog in this fight? Why are you taking this so personally?

Silly me, I dislike being called ignorant after doing quite a bit of legwork to support my position on this issue.

Sure, I'm unsurprised that clinical studies would refer to patients using the pronouns that reflect the gender roles the patients assume in "real life".

And that's all very sensitive to the patients, but it's polite euphemism that doesn't speak to the genetics or the standard understanding of most non-scientists. An XY genotype is commonly referred to as "male", regardless of phenotypic effects. Clinicians will refer to the patient's assumed gender role.

Oh gee, there is a bunch of stuff in here that opens up a can of worms. First of all, it's not just people who look at AIS that make the distinction between genotype/karyotype and phenotypes in regards to sex, but it is common throughout the research on animal sexual development. So for example, there are studies out there that talk about fish, reptiles, and insects changing their sexual phenotypes in response to environmental factors in early development. Scientists, real scientists are quite comfortable with talking about phenotypes where appropriate, and genotypes or karyotypes when appropriate.

Second, assumed gender role does not apply to terms like "female phenotype" which is commonly used in discussions of AIS. The observation that people with AIS have many female phenotypes isn't a matter of comfort, it's a matter of observational fact. Women with cAIS have labia, a clitoris, a vagina (a minority well within the range of normal female development) broad hips, and breasts. If these are not female phenotypes, what would you call them.

Third, XY is a karyotype. I find it frustrating to repeatedly have to correct this.

Fourth, why the assumption that clinicians are not doing real science? And if there are scientists who support your definition that XY karyotype = man, then can't you find some supporting evidence to this fact? After all, the nuts and bolts of science includes the peer review process.

And non-scientists might see a cAIS person as male or female, depending on any number of factors: genes, appearance, the extent that appearance was created or is maintained by surgical or medical intervention. Telling us about how you did some post-grad work in a lab before you decided not to continue just makes you one more person with an opinion about what defines gender.

Well, certainly. However, the difference here is that I'm willing to back up my opinion that scientists talk about gender on multiple levels beyond just the karyotype by presenting evidence from peer reviewed sources. You insist that scientists only talk about karyotype and trust us to take our word for it.

I been careful not to express any opinion about pollystark's gender; only that there is sufficient ambiguity (much depending on ideological feeling) about pollystark's gender that pollystark has an obligation to allow potential partners informed consent.

To me, this seems like a few very big steps back for you. It was quite clear to me that you were making claims about her gender, and where permitting no ambiguity in your discussion.

I respect your opinion, but I don't share it. cAIS is inherently ambiguous: a genetic male with female appearance.

Well, I think appearance is not strong enough. For the sake of moving towards a consensus, I'd agree with the fact that cAIS involves a person with a male karyotype and multiple female phenotypes.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:30 PM on January 4, 2006

ortho, I really can't wrap my brain around your insistence that chromosomes trump all else. How would pollystark's partners even know she's XY? Yes, they might wonder about the vag but what if she just said it was a birth defect and left it at that? How would the non-knowledge of her karyotype harm the partner in any way? (When it comes to that, you can't know for certain that all the women you've slept with have been XX.) There are plenty of good reasons for full disclosure, but sparing a partner from some putative harm is not one of them.

I hope you'll address phearlez's point about "passing." Your response here mirrors that intense, reflexive disgust at discovering a partner was "really" black, and I'm genuinely curious about what distinctions, if any, you see between the two situations.

PLEASE NOTE: I am not accusing you of racism, or any other -ism. I am trying to point out that your reaction seems, to me and many others, both irrational and extreme. (Interesting, too, that you felt the need to state it belligerently, right off.) Do you what you want, of course, but you might benefit from a wee bit of self-reflection here.
posted by vetiver at 1:30 PM on January 4, 2006

Justinian, as far as I'm concerned you've failed to put forward an ethical argument for why she should identify herself as intersex. Your argument boils down to "well, I would be squicked out and would want to know." But this is hardly the basis for an imperative. As for ortho's notion of "psychological risk," it's reasonable but it's also not particularly convincing. I could come up with an arbitrarily large list of factors that might cause "psychological risk" to potential partners. (I once told a gf that, earlier that night, I'd eaten live bugs. It freaked her out quite a bit. She hated bugs. Heh. Good times.) Again, by what criteria do you identify and measure such psychological risk? The whole idea leads to nonsense. (I suspect ortho is just riding this so hard because he really, really, really wants to hold on to his genetic essentialist views. I hope pollystark takes some time to read his previous comments!)

On preview, even if there is a "reasonable expectation" that a majority of men would be disgusted by pollystark's condition (quite an assumption) I don't see how this translates into an ethical imperative. Again, there is no harm here. At best, disclosure becomes the polite thing to do but not necessarily the right thing to do. And it'd still be perfectly understandable for pollystark not to disclose her condition and have to continually subject herself to the prejudice and ignorance of others.

The essential question here is what do potential sexual partners have a right to know? For most people, the criteria is based only on potential harm. As I pointed out earlier, there are good reasons for adopting this criteria and no other. Any other criteria is ultimately both arbitrary and, I'd argue, contrary to individual freedom. Does this mean sex is a risk? Yes. Sex is a big, complicated, messy, risk. There's no way around this fact. pollystark's potential partners entertain the risk, just like everybody else. If we all had to disclose such deeply personal facts to casual partners then, quite simply, nobody would ever get laid. More importantly, it'd do nothing than reinforce prejudices in an area of human activity that is already overrun with such dangers. And, honestly, if you're doing the casual sex thing than, in all likelihood, you've already slept with somebody and later regretted it. This would be no different. Learn the lesson and move on.
posted by nixerman at 1:38 PM on January 4, 2006

KirkJobSluder writes "For the sake of moving towards a consensus, I'd agree with the fact that cAIS involves a person with a male karyotype and multiple female phenotypes."

This is good. It's best to avoid terms like "genetically male", since the female phenotypes observed in cAIS are, in large part, caused by mutation to a gene. In a very real way, this fact makes cAIS patients "genetically female".

Limiting the discussion to karyotype removes this ambiguity.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:39 PM on January 4, 2006

Justinian: Well, I think the phrase, "genetically male" is really problematic. It's obvious because of the variations in AIS that full maleness involves multiple genes beyond just the little thing for testosterone on the Y chromosome. Knock out any part of the chain, and you end up with a person without the phenotypes that we associate with maleness.

Is it really proper to say that a person who lacks any of the genes necessary for male sexual development is "genetically male?" I think there is room for open debate on this.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:40 PM on January 4, 2006

Probably, KirkJob. Which is why my position is that a potential sexual partner should be informed so that he can engage in that debate with himself and make a decision.

Is that really, honestly, such an out-there position?
posted by Justinian at 1:44 PM on January 4, 2006

nixerman writes "At best, disclosure becomes the polite thing to do but not necessarily the right thing to do. And it'd still be perfectly understandable for pollystark not to disclose her condition and have to continually subject herself to the prejudice and ignorance of others."

I made two comments in the AskMe thread, the first defending pollystark's right to not disclose, and the second reversing that and suggesting that the ethical position is for her to disclose. I don't feel particularly strongly about it either way, but I changed my mind after reading her blog and seeing that she defines herself as intersex in what I take to be a gender identity sense. I agree that biological essentialism doesn't provide much of an ethical impetus for me in this case, and when I thought that pollystark self-identified as a woman I thought it was ethical not to disclose. If, however, the opposite is true and she considers herself intersex (again, as an identity) then it seems dishonest to both herself and her partners to not disclose this in sexual encounters. Where else would the rubber meet the road for such an identity? (Ok, in plenty of other places, but sex would certainly be a big place for such a gender identity to manifest.)
posted by OmieWise at 1:45 PM on January 4, 2006

klangklangston : "'Oh, but what if I'm creeped out?'
Well, ask her first and if you don't like the answer, don't fuck her."

I'm pretty neutral on this here whole situation-a-majiggy, but this answer that pops up from time to time seems...odd. Pollystark has a condition/situation that she's aware may ook folks out. She knows the ook factor enough that she mentioned it in the AskMe question. It would take her no time to state what her condition was, were she to do so. (It might well be awkward. It might well be embarassing. It would, of course, take between "some time" and "a whole lotta time" to explain what AIS is. But getting the first part out, "I have AIS", would take slightly under two seconds.)

Some people are saying "You should tell your partner." I can understand that.
Some people are saying "You don't need to tell your partner." I can understand that too.
But I can't understand why anyone is saying "Your partner should ask you about all the stuff that might bother them, and hope they ask enough questions."

I can just imagine my next date.

"Do you have a penis?"
"Have you ever had a penis?"
"Do your genitals smell horrible?"
"Have you placed hot peppers inside your genitals?"
"Have you placed excrement inside your genitals?"
...
3 hours later
...
"Have you ever placed a severed kitten's head inside your genitals?"
"Does squeezing your breasts result in pus spurting out?"
"Are you prone to diarrhoea during intercourse?"

People are seriously suggesting that person B ask person A about every possible thing that would put them off sex before initiating intercourse, instead of person A just telling them of something they suspect would put off person B? Telling folks, I get. Not telling folks, I get. But making folks play "1x10E99 Questions" before sex instead of picking options "tell" or "don't tell"? That's nuts.
posted by bugbread at 1:46 PM on January 4, 2006

Justinian: What's funny is that I've always agreed that informed consent in the best policy. That's not been a critical issue of debate for me.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:46 PM on January 4, 2006

OmniWise: I agree that biological essentialism doesn't provide much of an ethical impetus for me in this case, and when I thought that pollystark self-identified as a woman I thought it was ethical not to disclose.

Well, you see, I don't even think this is really about biological essentialism either. I think it's more a matter that biological mechanisms behind gender dimorphism are a bit more complex than XY->male, XX->female.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:51 PM on January 4, 2006

(Mitheral makes me laugh.)

Agreed.
posted by ericb at 1:53 PM on January 4, 2006

Also, I'd just like to thank ortho and Justinian for trying to keep it civil and apologizing in the event of failure. I guess this is a touchy subject for all but, I think it's very important that the green not take on the agressive/snarky/sarcastic tone of the blue.
posted by nixerman at 1:56 PM on January 4, 2006

Hmm. I wrote some more and erased it and it occured to me that a meta-viewpoint of this discussion reveals that there's a lot here that is similar to the linguistic descriptive/prescriptive argument, if you realize that most people who fall on the prescriptive side of the language argument are really idealists. Denying dynamism, they want to support their socially normative arguments by invoking an essentialist absolute. And here I'm not talking about academic, intellectual discussions; I'm talking about casual, everyday conversation among regular people.

Someone told me last month, with an offended tone, that I can't make up my own words. Why can't I? Where do words come from? The word fairy?

It matters to someone what sex pollystark "really" is because most people are idealists about a lot of things, and sexual differentiation is among them. And because some of these people are inclined to reductionism, they've latched onto the Y chromosome as the singular determination of "sex". And because they wrongly equate this essentialist reductionism to scientific empiricism—and to being rational—they are scornful and condescending to those who disagree. I find that very irritating.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:00 PM on January 4, 2006

A question involving biology, sexual identity and intercourse, sexual preferences, and consent got a little heated. I'm shocked, shocked. If abortion and guns had been involved, it would have been the trifecta.
posted by Justinian at 2:13 PM on January 4, 2006

To put this point another way, if the progression of biological science had been completely from the outside in, with no look at the genetics until the end, then sexuality as determined by biological development would appear to be mostly decided endocrinologically and around that level than it is genetically. The genetics would be a set of intial conditions that both interelate in ways that make things like karyotype determinations often misleading and can (and are) altered developmentally. There wouldn't be what seems to me to be a fetish for the essential genetics to be all-important. That's not to say that, in final anaylsis, the crude genetics aren't sufficiently descriptive and determinative—they are—but that it wouldn't occur to us to define sex in such a way because we would be well aware that almost everything could be descriptively and functionally different than the sex that is apparently determined by the crude genetics.

I find it really weird to be in the middle here on this topic between this sort of simplistic reductionism that presumes itself to be the only rationalism, and the simplistic social descriptive relativism that presumes itself to be the only wisdom. On the one side we've got those who point to the Y chromosome and say: "There be Sex". On the other side we've got those who point to an entirely variable socialisation and say: "There be Sex". But it seems to me that any truly reasonably person would easily realize that there's a myriad of levels of description and causal relationships between the reductionism and the social relativism.

I'm perfectly willing, for practical purposes, to take a survey from one extreme perspective to the other, and combine some things, add water, and salt to taste, and then draw a line dividing the sexes. I'm not willing to agree that the line is drawn at the Y chromosome "because it is". Or the presence of testicles, or breasts, or high heels.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:22 PM on January 4, 2006

"Do you have a penis?"
"Have you ever had a penis?"
"Do your genitals smell horrible?"
"Have you placed hot peppers inside your genitals?"
"Have you placed excrement inside your genitals?"
...
3 hours later
...
"Have you ever placed a severed kitten's head inside your genitals?"
"Does squeezing your breasts result in pus spurting out?"
"Are you prone to diarrhoea during intercourse?"

It's called "The Aristocrats!"
posted by darukaru at 2:28 PM on January 4, 2006

Mithereal: "Well this guy on the net said it's up to me to to make sure my potential one night stands wouldn't squick me out as they are under no obligation to reveal 1 in 20K stuff on there own."

First, I'm not a guy.

Second, I'm not suggesting you play 20zillion questions with your next partner. I'm not suggesting you do anything. I'm saying that, as a basic rule, people are not obligated to disclose details of their medical history simply because it's possible someone would be squicked out by them. They may choose to if they want, and it may be a wise decision to divulge some things, but choosing not to does not make them liars or rapists.

I'm not telling you you have to ask anyone anything. I'm saying that you can't expect other people to anticipate your prejudices. If you want to only fuck people with naturally red hair, or pure-blood scandinavians, or people without AIS, you're going to have to take some responsibility for that.

Otherwise, what you're asking is for everyone to stop before sex to say,

"Before we go any further, I think you should know:
i haven't shaved my public hair for a couple of days,
i'm not a natural brunette,
i don't know who my great great great grandfather was so i can't make any guarantees about my race,
i have a small tattoo on my butt,
i voted republican once,
i made out with some other girls in college,
i'm against partial-birth abortion,
i have a small cyst in my right breast that you can only feel if you press just right,
i broke my left pinky toe when i was eight and it's always been a little crooked,
i'm not vegan,
i'm not a virgin..."

[three hours later]

"i have a birthmark on my back i can't see very well so i can't be sure it doesn't look like a face and won't remind you of an uncle you might have who could have molested you which you may or may not remember so you might not want to do it doggystyle..."
posted by crabintheocean at 2:48 PM on January 4, 2006

Crabintheocean, that only works if someone with AIS who self-identifies as transgender (see blog) is the equivalent of someone who voted republican, has a tattoo, or has dyed hair.

Are you seriously equating transgenderism with hair dye?
posted by Justinian at 3:12 PM on January 4, 2006

From her blog: Polly Stark is 24. She lives in a city in the UK. She has not yet fully pinned down her sexuality. She has AIS, which is an intersex condition.

She isn't transgendered and doesn't identify as transgendered. She says that she has an intersex condition, which means that one or more markers of gender are different from the others. But none of her medical treatment for AIS has been used to reverse purely masculine elements.

As I already said at Ask MeFi, the stunted testes women with AIS possess do not turn into testicles and do not produce sperm. But they do produce a fair bit of testosterone and a trickle of estrogen, as do all testes and fully formed testicles. I'm an XX woman, and my ovaries produce a lot of estrogen and a trickle of androgens. Both polly and I have adrenal glands that also produce testosterone.

So the removal of her testes when she was an infant removed one part producing androgens that her body completed ignored. (Her body still produces androgens from the adrenal glands, the same as me, which my body listens to and her body ignores.) But that surgery also removed a part of her body that would have produced enough estrogen at puberty to allow to to develop a typical adult female body. Women with cAIS who postpone the surgery until after puberty develop typical female external anatomy from that trickle of estrogen produced naturally by their own bodies. polly and other cAIS women who are now on estrogen replacement are in the same boat as XX women who have lost their ovaries and take estrogen to avoid premature menopause. She had no unambiguously masculine characteristics to be removed through surgery; the surgery was performed because of her high risk of cancer.

That said, I think it would be easier on her, not just her partners, to disclose in stages, with full disclosure before going to bed with someone new, as I already said on the green. Both transgendered people (not polly) and intersex people (polly!) may find some people have a tough time being comfortable with them. Why expose yourself to the scorn of an asshole, or the fumbling confusion of some otherwise nice guy who can't cope with a sudden surprise or a shattered expectation, if you don't have to?
posted by maudlin at 4:11 PM on January 4, 2006

Arguing wether pollysnark is a man or a woman is rather pointless. I think it would be up to the man or woman to decide what constitutes a man or woman as far as their own sexuality is consourned. No hemming and hawing about phenotypes and karyotypes is going to convince orthogonality that he should have sex with this woman.

If that's 'prejudiced' then I suppose that means all exclusive heterosexual or homosexual people are also prejudiced, which is idiotic.
posted by delmoi at 4:18 PM on January 4, 2006

that said, I'd favor deleting most of the 'argument' in that AskMe thread. It's really unnecessary, especially now we have this one.
posted by delmoi at 4:20 PM on January 4, 2006

I do think it's stupid to compare her to someone having an STD or someone handing out roofies, though. It's definetly not "rape", but it would be very desturbing for some people.
posted by delmoi at 4:21 PM on January 4, 2006

Yes, polly gets to identify herself. I don't think orthogonal or any other man should have to have sex with this woman. But I don't think anyone was arguing that he should, and at this point, I don't think polly would want him either.

But since polly identifies as a woman, and seems to have a hell of a lot of science and doctors lining up to support her, I find it worthwhile to slog into the arguments people have offered about her being "really" a man or "really" transgendered because I think they're just plain wrong.
posted by maudlin at 4:25 PM on January 4, 2006

pollystark self-identifies as a "genderfuck, intersex, queer girl" - not as transgender. There is a difference. The difference might not make much of a difference to anyone who'd be uncomfortable with any one of the above adjectives, but it's there.

As to 'equating transgenderism with hair dye': a million AskMe questions have convinced me that there's no consensus here. Things that seem absurdly trivial to one person are total dealbreakers for another. Plus sometimes it's not only the particular issue that's a dealbreaker, but how and when it's discussed. Thus, the AskMe question. And now we have come full circle.
posted by expialidocious at 4:29 PM on January 4, 2006

Serious question:

Can someone with XX have a penis? (I'm guessing no)

(less serious)
What if Ortho had XX, would that make sleeping with polly OK?
posted by delmoi at 4:39 PM on January 4, 2006

That's exactly why my position is, and always has been, that I hope polly finds and has mad bunny sex with a guy who has no problem whatsoever with her somewhat complicated situation. But she should be upfront about that situation because a lot of people are not that guy and, knowing that to be the case, it is the ethical thing to do.

Pointing that out is not, I think, being an asshole, obnoxious, homophobic, or rude. (Calling people ignorant was obnoxious but I've already apologized for that. I note, on the other hand, that no one ever apologized for calling Ortho an ignorant homophobe.)
posted by Justinian at 4:40 PM on January 4, 2006

Delmoi:

serious answer: There is something called congenital adrenal hyperplasia where an infant with XX Chromosones can have what appears to be a penis. Like AIS, the situation is more complicated than "genetic female with a penis" but I think it matches your question.

less serious: that would be completely up to Ortho. Polly should tell him her situation and he should tell her his.
posted by Justinian at 4:46 PM on January 4, 2006

bleh, there are a lot more useless comments in that thread which still need to be deleted, IMO.
posted by delmoi at 4:48 PM on January 4, 2006

Why are you bringing transsexualism into this discussion? It just muddies the issue. (But were I to take an extreme, principled position on this I'd say "yes" to your question.)

Again, I'll accept the truth of the assertion that there are a large minority of people out there who will identify "sex" with karyotype and thus will think that prospective partners have a right to know this prior to engaging in sex or pursuing a longer relationship. I won't accept the assertion that their preferred means of this determination is the only "correct" one. And I will assert that a viewpoint that expects everyone to act in accordance with this point-of-view is exactly like the expectation that everyone, not just racists, should accomodate in their behavior a minority's strong feelings about "race" and thus have the expectation that a potential sexual partner, for example, is obligated to disclose their "blackness" regardless of whether they think it defines them or not.

And, as a matter of fact, I will assert that we should not behave this way as an accomodation to this minority notion because doing so validates an unjust viewpoint and outcome.

On preview:

"If that's 'prejudiced' then I suppose that means all exclusive heterosexual or homosexual people are also prejudiced, which is idiotic."

That's a bad comparison. What's wrong here is twofold: first, while it's pretty universal that in the context of social interections and, obviously, courtship, people think in terms of a definite "sex" and have a right to know this status about their partner, it's the case that the kyrotype is not the basis on which almost anyone, anywhere, make that determination. Secondly, of the most obvious descriptive levels—genetic, kyrotype, neuroanatomic,gross anatomic and endocrinological, 'primary' external anatomical differentiation, and social role—the kyrotypical level is perhaps the least descriptive and useful.

This is similar to the notion of "race". Although it's true that most of the characteristics we associate with "race" are necessarily the product of biological differentiation and thus genetics; nevertheless this reductionist, essentialist, biological basis turns out to be poorly predictive, poorly descriptive, and is a pseudo-scientific "authority" that acts as cover for what is more properly understood as a cultural process and behind which those so inclinded hide their bigotry. This point of view should be opposed, it is unjust.

So, too, is this; and there are better ways to determine "sex" than the kyrotype.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:50 PM on January 4, 2006

"Can someone with XX have a penis? (I'm guessing no)"

An even better, more illustrative answer to demoi's question than Justinian's CAH example is the example of giving a pregnant woman with a XX fetus testosterone during gestation.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:53 PM on January 4, 2006

An XX woman exposed to extra testosterone in the womb (or an adult woman who takes anabolic steroids) can get an enlarged clitoris that resembles a micropenis. Yes, it's a highly enervated organ that responds to stimulation by engorging with blood, but it isn't an organ of generation or elimination. This enlarged clitoris isn't a penis any more than a massively developed arm is a leg.
posted by maudlin at 5:00 PM on January 4, 2006

EB: Race is far too complicated to determine genetically, while sex is. In fact most people don't consider race to be a valid scientific term in the first place.

I also think it's sort of a gray area. I think most straight men are at least a little homophobic, they don't want to 'be' gay even if they might enjoy gay sex. From that standpoint, if it's a gray area, then better safe then sorry. I wouldn't want to sleep with a biological woman who dressed up and lived as a dude either.

It's pretty clear that human beings have a deep basis for their sexual taboos, and none of them make that much sense, other then as a genetic driver. Nevertheless a child told that "XX means woman" and "XY means man" are going to internalize that as part of their normative definition. I suspect that's what's happened to ortho as well as myself.

This enlarged clitoris isn't a penis any more than a massively developed arm is a leg.

This made me laugh.
posted by delmoi at 5:09 PM on January 4, 2006

That's all? You sure (in the fetal case)? Is there not a hormone "therapy" which, theoretically, when applied throughout gestation would determine most sexual differentiation regardless of the kyrotype?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:11 PM on January 4, 2006

crabintheocean seems to have quite a bit more than just opinion riding their posts on this one. his/her posts in the axeme thread have taken over ortho's job of near-obsessive self-defense to the point of flaming out.

what I will say is this:

crabintheocean, you are wholly wrong. Not disclosing your entire medical history is one thing, but having sex with a heterosexual male without disclosing that you once had testicles that were surgically removed is entirely another. BEING STRAIGHT ISN'T PREJUDICE, you asshole. You can feel however you want about people that can't see past the testicle thing. I don't believe anything about pollystark's condition would bother ME, per se, but that doesn't mean that no one could be or should be bothered by it. If you want to think people who would be bothered by it are assholes, fine. But that doesn't change the responsibility of people to disclose things that directly impact the person they're having sex with.

I don't know enough about genetics. I don't know enough about AIS. For all I know there is simply nothing about pollystark that currently makes her male. For all I know, however, there is also nothing about pollystark that makes her female except for her mindset. For some people, sex with someone requires more than a female mindset, however. Those people aren't wrong, they're just different. Non-disclosure, in this case, sounds to me like dishonesty, because the attitude/clothes/outward appearance immediately tell a story that either the genes/testicles/whatever don't back up. That matters to some people. If those people are assholes, fine, but it's important enough to bring up, anyway. Assholes have rights, too.
posted by shmegegge at 5:22 PM on January 4, 2006

" In fact most people don't consider race to be a valid scientific term in the first place. "

I'm one of them. My whole point was that "race" cannot be determined by genetics. Sexuality is a far more biologically determined differentiation—but assuming that the simplistic XX/XY basis completely determines this differentiation is similar to believing that there is necessarily a simple genetic basis for the concept of "race".

Sex is extremely biologically determined (I believe), but where that determination lies is complex and it certainly is not simply found in the chromosomal distinction alone.

Racists assume there's something the equivalent to the karyotypal sex differentiation in the case of "race" and from this position they assert absolutes and use those to validate their bigotries.

I don't mean to equate race and sex with regard to biology—I think the former notion is nonsense while the latter is validated. I'm not saying that. But what I am trying to do is to illustrate the impulse to look for a dubious reductionist basis upon which to make absolutist assertions that validate prejudices and to say, "I'm being scientific, you're not".

The karyotype

January 4, 2006 6:05 AM Subscribe

January 4, 2006
6:05 AM Subscribe