 |
 |
On 15 Jan 00 at 13:45, tryke Sister wrote : > Also, just because something is not recognized as an IS condition, that does > not mean that it shouldn't be reclassified as such. Would you be interested in expanding on this by sharing with us what grounds you believe might exist for reclassifying cloacal exstrophy as an intersexed condition? -- Mairi MacDonald %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%