Correct Chip but not representative enough....
I would propose that it is impossible to use any medical criteria for defining a 'man' or 'woman'.
There are many kinds of intersex persons, including sex-reversed persons (born that way), who do not fit any definition of male or female,chromosomal or anatomical .
The reality of such persons does not permit a simple chromosomal, gonadal or genital definition of male or female, man or woman.
Aaahhh yes indeed, life on Earth is much more complicated than the simple, common (
mis) understanding of male or female so passionately believed-in by some persons posting in this thread.
The scientifically proven fact is that XX and XY chromosomes cannot be used to legally define every human, because not all humans are merely XX or XY.
Some are chromosomally XXY, XO or Mosaic (having various chromosomal patterns[ XX, XY, XXY, XO or something else ] in different tissues throughout their bodies).
Then there are naturally sex-reversed people whose bodies are the opposite of what is expected . Such persons have XX chromosomes with male anatomy, or XY chromosomes with female anatomy (just ask the IOC the problems this is creating for them).
Neither can gonads (ovaries or testes) or other reproductive parts be used to define every person's sex, because some otherwise normal men have a uterus (Persistent Mullerian Duct Syndrome) and some chromosomal 'women' have a
functional penis and testes.
There are even completely "sex-reversed" (
this is the actual medical term!) people who have normal-looking bodies that are the opposite of their sex chromosomes. Complete-AIS XY 'genetic males' look like normal women and
some even have the ability to function sexually just like normal women, and Complete-CAH XX 'genetic females' have normal external male anatomy.
Such naturally sex-reversed people have always been sex-assigned and raised as their anatomical sex, not their so-called chromosomal or genetic sex (
which BTW I don't believe in - they should be allowed to 'self determine' which sex they prefer to be when they are old enough to understand their genetic make-up).
There are a normal looking and feeling men and women who have been born without any genitals, not to forget intersex persons who were
born with both a functional vagina and a functional phallus.
Some intersex people are so-called true hermaphrodites (
a medical label that is being phased-out as offensive), because they have ovotestes or both testicular and ovarian tissue in their mixed-sex gonads.
While
most intersex persons are infertile,
some can and do biologically parent children or successfully give birth.
In some badly polluted areas (does the DR come to mind and would Salinas fit this description?), the incidence of XY feminized intersex has doubled in the last 25 years.
Estimates for various population groups range from 1 in 2000 to 1 in 100 for persons born with some atypical sex differentiation.
That is a lot of people who will not fit into any one-size-fits-all definition of 'man and woman' or 'male and female'.
Now will the rule of law or the rule of the person (especially those who refuse to acknowledge that the word 'man' signifies ALL humans) be the determining factor in how these people will be 'defined'?
Cases studies are on-line at the National Library of Medicine (
National Library of Medicine - National Institutes of Health ) Entrez PubMed journal search site
PubMed Home . This site is easy to use and accesses scientific journal citations,all the way back to the 1960s.
Trusting those who do not have sufficient mental capacity to contribute to this debate, will keep their NALs comments to themselves.......
