 |
 |
On 15 Jan 00 at 20:22, tryke Sister wrote : > I felt it was necessary to point out > that said person *medically may* be intersexed, Not sure why you should feel it necessary - there is not a whit of evidence to suggest that the child in question was intersexed. > thus basically drawing > attention to the doctor's MNSHO inaccuracy as well as predjudice > against transpeople. Had the child been intersexed, the doctor's diagnosis would have been *correct*. But even then, surgical reassignment would probably have been contra-indicated. Let me state the facts again - this was a genetically male child whose genitalia (male) were deformed, quite consistant with cloacal exstrophy. There was nothing whatever intersexed about the child; what *could* be said is that she has all the characteristics consistant with being trans, except for one vital one - self-identification. It would have been astonishing had she had, as she was one year old when the initial genital surgery was performed on her. But this diagnosis ran contrary to the agenda of the practitioner in question and so he pushed the "intersexed" diagnosis - and got away with it. He then attempted to create a smokescreen by using the earlier quoted abusive, insulting and dismissive language about trans people. To invite such a practitioner to serve on an advisory board of a body which is supposed to serve the trans and intersexed communities defies reason. Using the same flawed logic, perhaps NATO should invite Slobodan Milosevic to serve as an advisor on human rights .... -- mairi macdonald %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%