something i don't get about this part. my wife and i just had an amnio done for our new baby. the doctor draws amniotic fluid out of the sac and tests for downs syndrome, among other things. they also can tell you the sex of the baby at that point. the "ambiguous genetalia" should be irrelevant if you're had an amnio. gender should be known before birth.
What you get from the amniocentesis (sp?) is a genotype of your baby. They'll check to see if there are two X chromosomes or an X and a Y. However, in some cases, a baby born with an X and a Y might not have developed external genitalia (and vice versa). There is gender which is determined by the 23rd chromosome, and there is also the gender we have "programmed" in our brains (that's what these guys are arguing). Usually those are in sync. Sometimes they're not. I think that's what folks think should be taken into consideration when a doctor has to surgically decide the "gender" of the baby when no external genitalia is available.
thanks mon, i suppose i should know this since i learned a few years ago i was born with an X and half a Y on the 23rd chromosome, a condition similar to kleinfelter's syndrome (XXY). no immediately obvious outward manifestations although there are some real consequences.
I shouldn't have used "promiscuous"....Allow myself to carify.....mmm....myself- I think it's fine if you are or want to be homosexual or bi--however, I believe that the aforementioned research is valid in supporting the original thesis that being "gay" is a genetic influence. I haven't seen or heard of any research that supports the supposition that some are born "bi".
If some of these people are born with "ambiguous genitalia", which is a purely physical thing, is it really a stretch to think that bisexuality would occur naturally? It seems like you think in black-and-white terms (either gay OR straight) and don't think that there's any grey.
Never said that it was a stretch it couldn't occur--and I am completely open to that idea...My intention was to up-hold the initial research and support the idea the genetic research--I've seen NOTHING to indicate "Bi-ness". I'm not sure why we are arguing though....aren't we pretty much on the same page?
I wasn't arguing, except for the promiscuity thing. Your question about researching bisexuality just confused me. I kinda see sexuality in degrees...some people can be more straight or gay than others....and bisexuals, in my mind, are kind of in the middle. Since that is the way I view it, this research does address bisexuality, even if not explicitly. From your posts it seems like you think that separate reseach would be needed for bisexuals. That's where we got our wires crossed. Don't worry, I've got no beef with you.
