First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Woman who is '95 per cent genetically male' gives birth to twins.
Posted 2/12/15 , edited 2/12/15

A woman who is “genetically male” has had twins, after three years of pioneering treatment.

The new mother looks like a woman, but has 95% male chromosomes.

Though she has no ovaries and has never menstruated, doctors in India were able to help the woman conceive and give birth to the children through treatment that helped develop her uterus, which was described as infantile.

“This is something similar to a male delivering twins,” Sunil Jindal, the infertility specialist who administered the treatment, told the Times of India.

The woman herself did not know she had the condition, according to Sky News. She was “flabbergasted” when she was told but her husband was supportive.

The mother’s condition is known as XY gonadal dysgenesis. That means that the woman has external female characteristics, but doesn’t have functional gonads or ovaries. Those organs are usually necessary for reproduction, helping to create the eggs from which babies will grow.

Instead, doctors developed embryos using a donor egg and then placed that in the uterus, after it had been treated. That allowed the woman to become pregnant.

Doctors then had to help the woman carry the pregnancy “in a body not designed for it”, as Anshu Jindal, medical director at the hospital that delivered the babies, described it to the Times of India.

The two babies, one boy and one girl, were delivered through caesarean section.

There have only been four or five cases where women with this condition have been able to give birth, according to experts. Even in women without the condition, assisted reproduction has a success rate of about 35%-40%.


Link. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mostly-male-woman-gives-birth-to-twins-in-medical-miracle-10033528.html


So what do you people think of this ?
73322 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M
Offline
Posted 2/12/15 , edited 2/12/15
She may have given birth but genetically they aren't her kids. Very much like a surrogate parent. It doesn't really change anything in my eyes.
Posted 2/12/15

corteznr1 wrote:

She may have given birth but genetically they aren't her kids. Very much like a surrogate parent. It doesn't really change anything in my eyes.


Still she their mom. A parent is the one who take care of you no because you came out of somebody vagina or penis.
Posted 2/12/15 , edited 2/12/15
I'm happy for her that she's able to give birth to a child.



Just goes to show genetics doesn't really define gender; sometimes things can go differently than intended.
17037 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Stuck in Edolas
Offline
Posted 2/12/15 , edited 2/12/15
Genetically most mammal life forms have over 98% similar genetic construct. even an apple shares 90% DNA with humans..... i forgot what my point was going to be originally, but 95% male genes over all change in genetic construct from an average women is ~0.01%-0.0888%


Edit: Forgot to put it, but i, personally, am supportive of this kind of research and science development. just goes to show that with development its possible any woman that wants to become a mother can. maybe similar instances can bleed over into society and break the boundaries of gender all together. One where there is no wall defining what a male or female can do with their life.
37958 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F
Offline
Posted 2/12/15 , edited 2/12/15

KarenAraragi wrote:


corteznr1 wrote:

She may have given birth but genetically they aren't her kids. Very much like a surrogate parent. It doesn't really change anything in my eyes.


Still she their mom. A parent is the one who take care of you no because you came out of somebody vagina or penis.


She's not biologically their mother though.

Like, I understand what you mean; I class my step-dad as my dad to other people because he's the one who's took care of me, but he's not my real dad, I am not blood-related to him.

This article is pretty much a surrogate donor story.
37958 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F
Offline
Posted 2/12/15 , edited 2/12/15

GayAsianBoy wrote:

Just goes to show genetics doesn't really define gender; sometimes things can go differently than intended.


Of course you'd say that.
30777 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Fraxinus
Offline
Posted 2/12/15 , edited 2/12/15
Sure, I'm all like "Live and let live" on most days, and I don't really have a problem with this, and I get that she may want to become pregnant, herself, and give birth to her children, but I really can't help but think that at the end of the day they're not biologically her children, and I think adoption would have been the more... I'm hesitant to say "the more responsible way" but I'd rather a child that needs adopting gets adopted than a woman go through an over-the-top procedure to give birth to children that aren't biologically hers in the first place.

By the way, I am in no way lessening the validity of her being the childrens' "real" mother, but I'm just failing to see why this would be a better option than adoption.
Mr_Ed 
42660 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 2/12/15
I have to agree with Frenzify on this one. I think it was just over the top procedures which at the end of the day adopting a child would of had the same results. She could of saved that money, which im sure it wasn't cheap and could of been used to grow that child or send him to college.
22353 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Holland
Offline
Posted 2/12/15 , edited 2/12/15

amyhasabowtie wrote:


GayAsianBoy wrote:

Just goes to show genetics doesn't really define gender; sometimes things can go differently than intended.


Of course you'd say that.


Is it wrong to say/think that? Or do you perhaps just have a different opinion on the matter? (─‿─)
82916 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 2/12/15 , edited 2/12/15
I'm happy for her! Despite having a rare genetic disorder she was able to give birth (with a little medical help). She had a womb given to her by her genetics (which do define gender - female in this case).
20027 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/12/15
It doesn't say if she was born with a uterus. I'm a MTF transsexual and I find this article is seriously lacking a lot of information and a waste of time.
8345 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 2/12/15
Im sure some of the God Squad would object...
35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 2/12/15 , edited 2/12/15

dpuharic wrote:

It doesn't say if she was born with a uterus. I'm a MTF transsexual and I find this article is seriously lacking a lot of information and a waste of time.


She was born with a uterus, but it was underdeveloped prior to treatment:


Though she has no ovaries and has never menstruated, doctors in India were able to help the woman conceive and give birth to the children through treatment that helped develop her uterus, which was described as infantile.
19097 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / London
Offline
Posted 2/12/15

Mr_Ed wrote:

I have to agree with Frenzify on this one. I think it was just over the top procedures which at the end of the day adopting a child would of had the same results. She could of saved that money, which im sure it wasn't cheap and could of been used to grow that child or send him to college.


Saved the money for what? At the end of the day, you only live once, so you should invest your money in something you actually want. Of course, if she couldn't afford it then it's a different story. But she clearly wanted this, so why save money for something you don't want as much?
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.