request for info- XXY females

[melonade]

In the past week I've seen several posts mentioning XXY individuals with female genitalia or even female reproductive organs. One of the posts cited Dr Klinefelter's original paper which listed 1 of his 9 original patients as being female. Another of the posts mentioned a XXY woman in New Zealand.

But trying to find out more information is proving difficult. The mainstream XXY websites appear to be saying it's impossible. But it can't be too impossible if Dr Klinefelter found 1 in 9.

If anyone with definite information on this aspect could post in reply, I would be quite interested.

[Onnineko]

Melonade,

There are a number of confirmed cases documented in medical literature of XXY females, however, they are few. Not much is known about the class as a whole, and since they are women, indistinguishable from any other woman, finding which are XXY and which are XX would require significant population based studies. At this time women are not regularly tested.

We might find out at some point that they are hybrids, XXY and CAH, or something of that nature. Again, there hasn't been any followup, except to notice the oddity.

Onnineko

[roguekiwixxy]

In the past week I've seen several posts mentioning XXY individuals with female genitalia or even female reproductive organs. One of the posts cited Dr Klinefelter's original paper which listed 1 of his 9 original patients as being female. Another of the posts mentioned a XXY woman in New Zealand. But trying to find out more information is proving difficult. The mainstream XXY websites appear to be saying it's impossible. But it can't be too impossible if Dr Klinefelter found 1 in 9. If anyone with definite information on this aspect could post in reply, I would be quite interested.

Nup never heard of it.

[roguekiwixxy]

Melonade,

There are a number of confirmed cases documented in medical literature of XXY females,
Onnineko

If that's true, where shall I go to get the information?

[miriam]

If that's true, where shall I go to get the information?

Google is your friend: http://www.google.com/search?q=xxy-female

[melonade]

Melonade,

There are a number of confirmed cases documented in medical literature of XXY females, however, they are few. Not much is known about the class as a whole, and since they are women, indistinguishable from any other woman, finding which are XXY and which are XX would require significant population based studies. At this time women are not regularly tested.

We might find out at some point that they are hybrids, XXY and CAH, or something of that nature. Again, there hasn't been any followup, except to notice the oddity.

Onnineko

Thank you. So is what you are saying that there could be many XXY women, but they seldom come to the attention of doctors? With the official estimates of XXY being 1 in 1000, if 1 in 9 of those were female, being XXY female would be more common than many intersexed conditions.

And you say there are a few documented confirmed cases, do you know where I might be able to find out more details about their cases? So far, I've only been able to find an entry in an abandoned blog where someone appears to have said they are a XXY female and fertile. But with no way left to contact them and no way to be sure if they are a confirmed case, that doesn't amount to much.

[roguekiwixxy]

Google is your friend: http://www.google.com/search?q=xxy-female

What, do his research, why? Im don't like working for others for free.

Last time I heard of an XXY being female was in Wellington New Zealand, it was in the Courts, an XXY guy who had KS claimed he was abnd had been living as a female since early teen years and wanrted thye Courts permission to marry some other bloke. I hjave vno idea what happened.

BUT,

New Zealand Law's now allow any consenting persons to marry any orther consenting persons but if they're not maloe and fenale respectively the 'marriage' is called a Civil Union.

That seems to solve all the problems, except for those weird people who want to force a bible believing church to marry people the church doesn't accept as marriageable. But then only fools would want to be married in a church that hates what they're doing.

[fraulein_Maria]

[QUOTE=miriam;17807]Google is your friend: http://www.google.com/search?q=xxy-female

>>> its friendly, but as you and i know miriam, an XY'er with TESTICULAR FEMINIZATION (old name for AIS) even one with an extra X chromosome, will never have internal female organs. MIS destroys those structures in @<hidden> the 8th week in utero... the embryo no larger than a fingernail.

[melonade]

Miriam, thank you for the link to google. I've been trying other search engines which turned up lots of hits for pages which contain both "xxy" and "female", but so far very little about the subject at hand.

Graeme, who is the "his" of "his research"? Onnineko?

[roguekiwixxy]

Thank you. So is what you are saying that there could be many XXY women, but they seldom come to the attention of doctors? With the official estimates of XXY being 1 in 1000, if 1 in 9 of those were female, being XXY female would be more common than many intersexed conditions.


If Onni says something let Onni prove it before you assume it.

That's not an estimate, the incidence of XXY is 1:500 to 1:1000 live male births, which is an average, so if one were XXY and female those statistics don't count.

None of the men studied by Klinefelrter were women, obviously, I'm sure Klinefelter knew the difference between male and female. So really you're just trying to be difficult,, and it won't work,.............

See ya.

[fraulein_Maria]

[QUOTE=roguekiwixxy;17813] So really you're just trying to be difficult,, and it won't work,.............

See ya.

>>> that's not fair graeme, not in this instance. i'll be the first to back you when someone is simply being arguementative... but the posts in this thread seem like a genuine search for info. <<<

[melonade]

>>> its friendly, but as you and i know miriam, an XY'er with TESTICULAR FEMINIZATION (old name for AIS) even one with an extra X chromosome, will never have internal female organs. MIS destroys those structures in @<hidden> the 8th week in utero... the embryo no larger than a fingernail.

That being the case, how do the confirmed cases of XXY females exist? I am supposing that Dr Klinefelter really did mean female when he said it, otherwise he would have said something like "male pseudohermaphrodite" or whatever depressing terms they used back then. Anyway, why assume these XXY females have AIS? Maybe having a second X means that sometimes the MIS doesn't always do it's job?

[miriam]

>>> its friendly, but as you and i know miriam, an XY'er with TESTICULAR FEMINIZATION (old name for AIS) even one with an extra X chromosome, will never have internal female organs. MIS destroys those structures in @<hidden> the 8th week in utero... the embryo no larger than a fingernail.

I wasn't talking about testicular feminization. But there is at least one fertile woman with XXY-chromosomes and internal female organs:

http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowPDF&ProduktNr=224037&Ausgabe=226739&ArtikelNr=56845

An SRY-negative 47,XXY mother and daughter
S. Röttgera, K. Schiebelb, G. Sengerc, S. Ebnerc, W. Schemppa, G. Scherera

Females with XY gonadal dysgenesis are sterile, due to degeneration of the initially present ovaries into nonfunctional streak gonads. Some of these sex-reversal cases can be attributed to mutation or deletion of the SRY gene. We now describe an SRY-deleted 47,XXY female who has one son and two daughters, and one of her daughters has the same 47,XXY karyotype. PCR and FISH analysis revealed that the mother carries a structurally altered Y chromosome that most likely resulted from an aberrant X-Y interchange between the closely related genomic regions surrounding the gene pair PRKX and PRKY on Xp22.3 and Yp11.2, respectively. As a consequence, Yp material, including SRY, has been replaced by terminal Xp sequences up to the PRKX gene. The fertility of the XXY mother can be attributed to the presence of the additional X chromosome that is missing in XY gonadal dysgenesis females. To our knowledge, this is the first human XXY female described who is fertile.

Groeten, Miriam

[melonade]

If Onni says something let Onni prove it before you assume it.

That's not an estimate, the incidence of XXY is 1:500 to 1:1000 live male births, which is an average, so if one were XXY and female those statistics don't count.

None of the men studied by Klinefelrter were women, obviously, I'm sure Klinefelter knew the difference between male and female. So really you're just trying to be difficult,, and it won't work,.............

See ya.

Yes, I'm sure too that Dr Klinefelter knew the difference between male and female. And just recently, someone posted here a synopsis of his original paper where he had stated that one of the XXY subjects was female.

How is looking for more information about confirmed possibly rare cases being difficult?

[fraulein_Maria]

[QUOTE=melonade;17816]That being the case, how do the confirmed cases of XXY females exist? I am supposing that Dr Klinefelter really did mean female when he said it, otherwise he would have said something like "male pseudohermaphrodite" or whatever depressing terms they used back then. Anyway, why assume these XXY females have AIS?

>>> because most of the google links said so? i didn't look at all of them, but then again i didn't ask the question, and only bothered responding at all because there is someone here from XXY talk claiming PAIS'er status and a womb. i was thinking she might have got that notion from the links provided, but your not from XXY talk (that i know of) so it was not directed at you. <<<

Maybe having a second X means that sometimes the MIS doesn't always do it's job?

>>>>> nope. because MIS is a function that even a single X can't stop in anything but Persistent Mullerian Duct syndrome, but that's NOT the Dx these doctors have made, nor the Dx that person claims to have. <<<

[melonade]

I wasn't talking about testicular feminization. But there is at least one fertile woman with XXY-chromosomes and internal female organs:

http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowPDF&ProduktNr=224037&Ausgabe=226739&ArtikelNr=56845
Groeten, Miriam

Thank you very much Miriam. That is the sort of information I am looking for.

[fraulein_Maria]

[QUOTE=melonade;17821]Thank you very much Miriam. That is the sort of information I am looking for.

>>> i'm glad you found it. :) its wonderful isn't it? :)

and you found it because you didn't waste your (and our) time, 'posing.

there's a lesson in that for others... but i doubt there interested.

[roguekiwixxy]

[quote=roguekiwixxy;17813] So really you're just trying to be difficult,, and it won't work,.............

See ya.

>>> that's not fair graeme, not in this instance. i'll be the first to back you when someone is simply being arguementative... but the posts in this thread seem like a genuine search for info. <<<

Nah I've seen Onni's posts before, he likes to say something is documented or true but refuses to back it up.

So, most XXY boys look like XY boys when they're born, so the incidence of XXY at birth was not based on physical features, and those that don't look like the usaul XY are karyoptyped because of their unusual appearance. However it has not been demonstrated that their unusual apperarance is caused by the additional X, in fact it seems unlikely. Just becasue someone is XXY is no reason to assume they can't or won't have any other congenital disorder or developmental disorder as well.

So, in all the incidence studies done over many years there has never been a (as Onni claims) documented case of XXY female. If there was I would know about it, as I make it my business to know about such things.

Now then, Melonade says I should use my friend Google to try to track down a documented case of XXY female....but I don't use google for medical information, I use the British Medical Journal, which never ever links me back to articles listed at this forum, but google often does. And any articles here are hardly 'documented cases'.

So as far as I'm concerned the entire theread is inflammatory, there is not a genuine question, there is just misinformation compounded with misinformation. And this is the lastv post I will make on the matter, unless someone can send some FACTS and PROVE them.

[melonade]

Nah I've seen Onni's posts before, he likes to say something is documented or true but refuses to back it up.

So, most XXY boys look like XY boys when they're born, so the incidence of XXY at birth was not based on physical features, and those that don't look like the usaul XY are karyoptyped because of their unusual appearance. However it has not been demonstrated that their unusual apperarance is caused by the additional X, in fact it seems unlikely. Just becasue someone is XXY is no reason to assume they can't or won't have any other congenital disorder or developmental disorder as well.

So, in all the incidence studies done over many years there has never been a (as Onni claims) documented case of XXY female. If there was I would know about it, as I make it my business to know about such things.

Now then, Melonade says I should use my friend Google to try to track down a documented case of XXY female....but I don't use google for medical information, I use the British Medical Journal, which never ever links me back to articles listed at this forum, but google often does. And any articles here are hardly 'documented cases'.

So as far as I'm concerned the entire theread is inflammatory, there is not a genuine question, there is just misinformation compounded with misinformation. And this is the lastv post I will make on the matter, unless someone can send some FACTS and PROVE them.

I didn't say to use your friend google, Miriam recommended it. Miriam also provided a link to a documented confirmed case which involved a fertile XXY woman and her probably fertile XXY daughter. That's 2 right there. The cause was given as XXY with a defective Y. Because these XXY females are fertile, there could be many more in her family tree.

What is your objection to this topic which makes it inflammatory in your opinion?

[roguekiwixxy]

I wasn't talking about testicular feminization. But there is at least one fertile woman with XXY-chromosomes and internal female organs:
http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowPDF&ProduktNr=224037&Ausgabe=226739&ArtikelNr=56845
Groeten, Miriam

Well that's the first time I've ever heard of it. But it clearly has nothing to do with XXY males. But I'll be writing to thje authors for more infornation, lots more.

[miriam]

So, in all the incidence studies done over many years there has never been a (as Onni claims) documented case of XXY female. If there was I would know about it, as I make it my business to know about such things..

[Miriam makes a mental note not to do business with roguekiwixxy]

Are you sure you are not about 8 years behind with reading articles?

Now then, Melonade says I should use my friend Google to try to track down a documented case of XXY female, but I don't use google for medical information...

No, I said that. But if you don't like www.google.com you really should give a look at http://scholar.google.com

..., I use the British Medical Journal, which never ever links me back to articles listed at this forum, but google often does. And any articles here are hardly 'documented cases'.

FYI, it's called 'BMJ' today. BMJ: the publication formerly know as British Medical Journal :) They changed their name in 1988.

So as far as I'm concerned the entire theread is inflammatory, there is not a genuine question, there is just misinformation compounded with misinformation. And this is the lastv post I will make on the matter, unless someone can send some FACTS and PROVE them.

In that case you have to prove that there is "just misinformation compounded with misinformation". I'm sorry, just saying so is not enough.

Groeten, Miriam

[The Female Eunuch]

Melonade wrote:Miriam also provided a link to a documented confirmed case which involved a fertile XXY woman and her probably fertile XXY daughter. That's 2 right there. The cause was given as XXY with a defective Y. Because these XXY females are fertile, there could be many more in her family tree.

I understand how that could happen. The tendency of the Y chromosome to make someone male is due to one gene called the srY gene. The Y chromosome has some genes at one end which are also found on the X chromosome, and it sometimes swaps those with the equivalent gene on the X chromosome just before a sperm is formed. It is possible for it to swap slightly more genes, in which case the srY goes on the X chromosome that ends up in a different sperm. This leaves a sperm with a Y chromosome which will not make someone male.

This phenomenon doesn't really have anything to do with klinefelter syndrome - it can just as easily happen for someone who is XY. So, because XY is so much more common than XXY, there will be far more XY women due to this phenomenon that XXY women due to this condition.

This explains why Graeme hadn't heard of the condition, but it does not make his criticism of the question valid.

cheers,
Caroline

[melonade]

This phenomenon doesn't really have anything to do with klinefelter syndrome - it can just as easily happen for someone who is XY. So, because XY is so much more common than XXY, there will be far more XY women due to this phenomenon that XXY women due to this condition.

This explains why Graeme hadn't heard of the condition, but it does not make his criticism of the question valid.

cheers,
Caroline

That is true, Caroline. From the description in the article, a XXY female would be less common than a XY female in the first generation of the mutated Y. But because XXY females would be fertile while XY females would not, the XXY female will pass those chromosomes on to half her daughters, and so on and so on through successive generations, propagating the spread of the XXY female condition in a way not seen in any of the infertilizing intersexed conditions. If the original mutation happened 10 generations ago, there could be many fertile XXY females who have only not been found because no one was really looking.

[fraulein_Maria]

[QUOTE=roguekiwixxy;17823]

So as far as I'm concerned the entire theread is inflammatory, there is not a genuine question, there is just misinformation compounded with misinformation. And this is the lastv post I will make on the matter, unless someone can send some FACTS and PROVE them.

>>> the thread was started by melonade, not Onni. i have reviewed again carefully what was said... in this thread, not others... and find nothing but a legitimate search for info.

i realize that your hackles are still raised by nicky, and there appears to be some bad blood between you and some of the others from XXY talk....

but unless your ready to tell me you know who melonade is, i don't understand your attitude towards them at all.

[roguekiwixxy]

[Miriam makes a mental note not to do business with roguekiwixxy]


Business, this is chatting not business, or do you have a gsarden that needs work, that's my buisiness,


Are you sure you are not about 8 years behind with reading articles?



Oh I bet there's a lot more articles I'm not read, but if they're not related to me directly, why bother? But I am searching out more information and I'll post it when I get it. Can't wait for the Turner Moasic Male stuff to arrive, being a skeptic has it's rewards.


No, I said that. But if you don't like www.google.com (http://www.google.com) you really should give a look at http://scholar.google.com



I like the BMJ, thanks.


FYI, it's called 'BMJ' today. BMJ: the publication formerly know as British Medical Journal :) They changed their name in 1988.



They may have done, and the NZCCS changed it's name too, but those who always referred to it as NZ Crippled Children's Society don't change how they speak of the NZCCS, like those raised with the notion that as they are XXY they must have Klinefelter's syndrome find it hard to change too, so now we have a female sufferer of Klinefelter's syndrome on the basis that her chromosomes are XXY, she's naturally fertile, not that they Y does anything at all.


In that case you have to prove that there is "just misinformation compounded with misinformation". I'm sorry, just saying so is not enough.


Yeup and I will, this XYY woman does not have Klinefelter's syndrome and none of the males Dr Klinefelter reported on were female, obviously, so that information is mis-information isn't it. Unless of course the person who posted that mis-information can prove it, then I'll prove that person is wrong if that person ever does, but like Turner Mosaic Males, such does not exist.

Groeten, Miriam

......................

[The Female Eunuch]

Graeme wrote:Yeup and I will, this XYY woman does not have Klinefelter's syndrome and none of the males Dr Klinefelter reported on were female, obviously, so that information is mis-information isn't it.

Of course it is not klinefelters syndrome by definition, but nobody ever said it was, so that doesn't make it misinformation.


Unless of course the person who posted that mis-information can prove it, then I'll prove that person is wrong if that person ever does, but like Turner Mosaic Males, such does not exist.

As far as I can tell, you're the only person who doesn't recognise that the information Peter sent about that demonstrated that Turner Mosaic Males actually do exist.

cheers,
Caroline

[roguekiwixxy]

Graeme wrote:

Of course it is not klinefelters syndrome by definition, but nobody ever said it was, so that doesn't make it misinformation. As far as I can tell, you're the only person who doesn't recognise that the information Peter sent about that demonstrated that Turner Mosaic Males actually do exist.
cheers,
Caroline


The mis-information posted said that 1 of the 9 men Klinefelter described was female, that is mis-information.

The Persons reported by Peter had features that were similar to Turner's syndrome, ands then listed the possible similarities. People who have 'webbed neck syndrome' also have similar features to females with Turner's and they can be either male or female, so they're not Turner's, no males are Turner's no matter what similarities they posses that are similar to Turner's. Turner's do not have a Y chromosome. So even the females with 'webbed neck syndrome' don't have Turner's as they have normal chromosomes for females.

So if you, or anyone, thinks something 'similar' means 'identical', so be it.

[The Female Eunuch]

Turner's do not have a Y chromosome.

Turner's Mosaic Males, by definition, have a Y chromosome in some cells and not others. The fact that non-mosaic Turner's don't has nothing to do with it.

[roguekiwixxy]

Turner's Mosaic Males, by definition, have a Y chromosome in some cells and not others. The fact that non-mosaic Turner's don't has nothing to do with it.

Go back to the information provided by Peter and you'll figure it out.

There are no such people as Turner males of any type whatsoever. They do not exist.

[The Female Eunuch]

Go back to the information provided by Peter and you'll figure it out

no.

if you believe there is something in what Peter posted that backs up your rather eccentric claim, the onus is on you to point it out - not send people on wild goose chases to find an obscure piece of evidence that you may well have just imagined.

[OkieDokie]

There are no such people as Turner males of any type whatsoever. They do not exist.
You could be wrong!

In fact I'm quite sure of it!

hahahaha

[roguekiwixxy]

no.

if you believe there is something in what Peter posted that backs up your rather eccentric claim, the onus is on you to point it out - not send people on wild goose chases to find an obscure piece of evidence that you may well have just imagined.

Actually it was YOU who claimed what Peter posted supported what YOU claim, so you must know where this information is that YOU claim supports what YOU say, so are YOU too gutless or too something else?

The only person making an eccentric claim is YOU Caroline.

Your entire post where you make your claim is below, for your information. (emphasis added in red by me)

Quote:
Yeup and I will, this XYY woman does not have Klinefelter's syndrome and none of the males Dr Klinefelter reported on were female, obviously, so that information is mis-information isn't it.
Of course it is not klinefelters syndrome by definition, but nobody ever said it was, so that doesn't make it misinformation.


Quote:
Unless of course the person who posted that mis-information can prove it, then I'll prove that person is wrong if that person ever does, but like Turner Mosaic Males, such does not exist.
As far as I can tell, you're the only person who doesn't recognise that the information Peter sent about that demonstrated that Turner Mosaic Males actually do exist.

cheers,
Caroline

[roguekiwixxy]

You could be wrong!

In fact I'm quite sure of it!

hahahaha


Hardy :wink_smilha :wink_smilha :wink_smilha :wink_smilha :wink_smil haaaaaaaaaa!

[roguekiwixxy]

no. if you believe there is something in what Peter posted that backs up your rather eccentric claim, the onus is on you to point it out - not send people on wild goose chases to find an obscure piece of evidence that you may well have just imagined.

Oky doky, here's Peter's post:

Here is an article from the University of Washington, and sponsored by the National Institute of Health:

46,XY Disorder of Sex Development and 46,XY Complete Gonadal Dysgenesis
[Includes: DHH-Related 46,XY DSD and 46,XY CGD; NR0B1-Related 46,XY DSD and 46,XY CGD; NR5A1-Related 46,XY DSD and 46,XY CGD; SRY- Related 46,XY DSD and 46,XY CGD; WNT4-Related 46,XY DSD and 46,XY CGD]
Harry Ostrer, MD
Human Genetics Program
Department of Pediatrics
New York University School of Medicine

It is an up to date 2008 article that clearly mentions XY Turner Syndrome.

It says in part:

"45,X/46,XY chromosomal mosaicism or related chromosomal disorders, which may include the features of Turner syndrome, i.e., webbed neck, shield chest, coarctation of the aorta, renal anomalies, and short stature. Occurrence is sporadic."

You have no citation for your claim that XY Turner Syndrome does not exist, only your observation that XY Turner Syndrome was not included in a major study. You are like the proponents of the Weapons of Mass Destruction in the United States, in that you claim something to be true but cannot provide any evidence. You are more like some Americans than I am.

Peter

[melonade]

Graeme, If I'd asked for the thread of this question to be sidetracked into an unrelated argument over Turner's and Turner's mosaics, I'd be thanking you. But I didn't, so you'll be getting no thanks from me. If you've got nothing to contribute to the subject except to claim that the medical papers linked by Miriam and others were "mis-information", why do you bother? You appear to be no different at all from kamododragon in the intent of your postings being to disrupt, and he's gone.

[Kailana]

just to offer you some insight as I do believe you are in the USA, go to a local college, or community college. They will have computers set up exclusively for doing internet research, with complete access to tons of medical texts, research, case studies with none of the editing that is common to other places you might find information on.

Now Graeme is just being foolish by the way, if he really cared any at all he could of just looked in the Turners versus Noonans thread I started, the so called webb necked features he is blabering about is Noonans by the way, and does affect both boys and girls equally, but those features when it is noonans is not related or caused by carrying an XO cell line. It is the XO cell line that is Turners, and when there is a mixed population of cells with an XO cell line then it is Turner's Mosaicism. Problems cause and arise because alot of medical literature is innacurate and makes dumb statements that keep comparing the same Turner features with the similarities of Noonans, but there are different causes to explain those features. Reread the T vs N, its simple lots of other information available at the link offered too, if you take the time to look.

In a way I feel Graeme is like many Christians, who ignore any information that goes against what he personally believes. Even when there is evidence that he is wrong he won't correct his behavior nor offer an apology.

I may be annoying like a sliver stuck in your finger, Graeme is like a door that just wont open no matter what you to it to get it to open. Now a sliver stuck in your finger can be pried out, but a door that won't open, well it's better to just go out the window.

[roguekiwixxy]

It says in part:

"45,X/46,XY chromosomal mosaicism or related chromosomal disorders, which may include the features of Turner syndrome, i.e., webbed neck, shield chest, coarctation of the aorta, renal anomalies, and short stature. Occurrence is sporadic."


You have no citation for your claim that XY Turner Syndrome does not exist,


Golly gee wizz, I don't NEED to! Some people believe in the tooth fairy, butn hey children are allowed fantasies, but adults, come on!!!! :embaresse

only your observation that XY Turner Syndrome was not included in a major study.

No, twasn't me, I just know, like I knbow 2+2=4, that there are no such people as Turner Mosaic Males.



You are like the proponents of the Weapons of Mass Destruction in the United States,


If you insist, what can I do to change your mind? NOTHING, so ,why bother?


in that you claim something to be true but cannot provide any evidence.


There is a multitude of evidence, I just can't make you beleive it.


You are more like some Americans than I am.
Peter


It's always nice to speak highly of your compatriots. Haaaahahahhahahaha


..................................

[melonade]

Graeme, Might you please find a different thread to reply to yourself over Turner's syndrome? Turner's syndrome or any of it's varients have nothing to do with the question I asked which Miriam and Onnineko answered. Which you didn't try to answer because you declared the question unworthy.

Why not make your own thread instead of disrupting everyone else's? You can call it "Graeme vs World"?

[peaceandparty]

well its good that onnineko is here...because onnineko is extremely wise on many points!
(for the record onnineko and i are not on good terms from many moons ago....but i think onnineko is one of the best informed"doctors" that one should take advice from---most of the time!

as is clear....graeme is looking to disrupt!

bodies like ours is called that because it cant be minds like ours
because we are not all in agreement with eachother!

i have been slandered by graeme because he states many times on his youtube videos aabout me that i dont like to learn!
the realities are that there is lots to learn from eachother

melonade you are not alone in trying to get people to stay out of your personal bubble!
i am with you in spirit.....so far so good!

peace be with you always

[peaceandparty]

Thank you. So is what you are saying that there could be many XXY women, but they seldom come to the attention of doctors? With the official estimates of XXY being 1 in 1000, if 1 in 9 of those were female, being XXY female would be more common than many intersexed conditions.

And you say there are a few documented confirmed cases, do you know where I might be able to find out more details about their cases? So far, I've only been able to find an entry in an abandoned blog where someone appears to have said they are a XXY female and fertile. But with no way left to contact them and no way to be sure if they are a confirmed case, that doesn't amount to much.

hi everyone!

i know and talk with one xxy "woman"
i will not give "her" details out
because there are too many foul players at the moment here!

the problem with the term klinefelters syndrome is that it suggests that xxys are only males
i think xy is male
xx is female and xxy is another
but then the more deep you go into this subject
one realises that there are also xy females and xx males
so in essence i think the medical establishment would love to have a two tiered sexes world...because for them it would be simpler to control and manage
but evolution has had its place all along in time
and i think the less macho male types on this planet the better!
and nature sure has a way of finding balance!

i honestly whole heartedly want to continue preaching that this world has more than just females and males...and regardless of chromosomal difference or hormonal challenges even for people with penises...that we understand that a 100% fully "male" person and a 100% fully "female" person is rare to find!

please discuss!
thanks!
:)

[CC]

Last time I heard of an XXY being female was in Wellington New Zealand, it was in the Courts, an XXY guy who had KS claimed he was abnd had been living as a female since early teen years and wanrted thye Courts permission to marry some other bloke. Surely you're not implying that this xxy person was a guy (as in male):confused6

[roguekiwixxy]

Surely you're not implying that this xxy person was a guy (as in male):confused6


Surely not! He is a male, they both were / are / whatever :lol:

That's why he sought the Courts consent otherwise, back then, he would not have had to.

[The Female Eunuch]

Hi Melonade,
Melonade wrote:From the description in the article, a XXY female would be less common than a XY female in the first generation of the mutated Y. But because XXY females would be fertile while XY females would not,

Why would an XY female with srY transposition be infertile?

I'm not saying she would be fertile, I'm just unclear what determines whether she would be or not.

cheers,
Caroline

[melonade]

Hi Melonade,
Melonade wrote:

Why would an XY female with srY transposition be infertile?

I'm not saying she would be fertile, I'm just unclear what determines whether she would be or not.

cheers,
Caroline

I'm well beyond my personal expertise, but according to the article Miriam linked to, an XY who was female due to a srY transposition fertility-wise amounted to just being an X, which apparently means the ovaries atrophy after birth and can't produce eggs.

[Kailana]

or random chance, see thats what most people do not ever get or understand. If there is a broad claim that any specific condition causes intersexed people to be sterile, other people assume all condition's that can affect an IS person to be sterile, and that is not always true, while some condition's do have a 100% infertility rate many do not, fact is most medical texts your gonna find will only mention that fertility is rare in most cases, which is basically true. Just because it is rare, does not mean it does not exist. There will always be a few who are fortunate enough to be able to have children, they are the lucky few amongst us.

oh and far as I know none of the people I have heard of who are 47XXY had normal biological female anatomy at birth, the two children were surgically assigned as girls, that is what their parents said the doctors had reccommended. As for the adult woman with 47XXY your gonna have to ask her about her medical history. I could not validate any of them by the way nor care to, I do think it is important to think about though as they are still girls/women with a 47XXY genotype.

I have also met online other 47XXY women who were raised male, and you know what, I understand their decision to reassign and I also think it is relavent becuase they are still intersexed, and they have a right to live how they see best. It is their life after all and none of us have any right to judge or criticise them for being women with a 47XXY genotype.

[peaceandparty]

again,,,the last paragraph is excellent