PDA

View Full Version : medicine and same sex marraige


Carl Cohen
05-13-04, 01:43 AM
Medicine and the Same Sex Marriage Debate

Carl I. Cohen, M.D.
Professor of Psychiatry
SUNY Downstate Medical Center
cohen_c@<hidden>


Does medicine have a contribution to make in the debate about a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriages? I believe that medicine can advance the debate by providing a reasoned and nuanced discussion of the definition of gender. The proposed constitutional amendment banning same sex marriages rests on the assumption that gender is unambiguously divided into male and female. However, various studies have found that up to 2% of live births— as many as 80,000 annual births-- deviate from the standard definitions of chromosomal, genital, gonadal dimorphism(1, 2). This standard or ideal view presumes that males have one X and one Y chromosome, testes located in a scrotum, and a penis with an enclosed urethra that opens at the tip. Females are presumed to have two X chromosomes, functional ovaries, uterus, vagina, and a clitoris. In the about the 6th week of gestation, the developing embryo’s genital cells differentiate in the male direction if there is a Y chromosome present(3). If there is no Y chromosome present, differentiation occurs in the female direction. However, due to genetic programming, faulty development, or abnormal physical or hormonal influences, the developing fetus may not conform to the standards of “normal” gender.
At the chromosomal level a wide array of genetic patterns are possible. For example, instead of XY there are males with XXY, XXYY, XXXY, XXXXY, and XYY(1, 3 ). Abnormal testicular tissue, gynecomastia, smaller penises, and fewer secondary male characteristics such as facial hair accompany many of these patterns. However, many 47XXY and 47 XYY males are undiagnosed and manifest no symptoms(4). Among females, there are some who have only one X chromosome, those who have three, and others who have a mosaic of one X mixed with XX (1,3 ). These women have abnormal ovarian tissue, absence of breasts, and other lack other secondary female characteristics. Then, there are true genetic hermaphrodites with a mosaic of XX and XY chromosomes and who may have both ovaries and testes. Finally, there is the paradoxical case of XX males, who seemingly have the chromosomal composition of females, but who have penises and scrotum, albeit with abnormal testicular tissue. It is postulated that in about four-fifths of these persons a submicroscopic particle of the sex-determining region of the Y chromosome is translocated onto the paternal X chromosome(5). Cases of 47,XXX males have also been reported(3).
Even when chromosome composition is of the typical variety, deviations from standard gender anatomy may occur. The most rare form is “true hermaphroditism,” in which the persons have both testicular and ovarian tissue. However, more common varieties are called “pseudo-hermaphroditism.” In these instances, the person has gonadal tissue of one sex, but there is ambiguity about the genitalia. Abnormalities range from hypospadias or an enlarged clitoris, to cases in which gender is difficult to assign. The most common type in females is congenital adrenal hyperplasia( 6), which occurs in several forms. Baby girls typically have enlarged genitalia that make sexual assignment problematic. In males, testicular feminization syndrome occurs due to androgen insensitivity or absence of androgen receptors. Presentations include infants with female external genitalia, blind vaginas, no uterus, testes that are hidden in the abdomen or inguinal canal, or masculine phenotypes with azoopermia and elevated levels of luteinizing hormone(3). At puberty, they may develop breasts with little pubic or axillary hair. Although they are genetically male, these persons are usually raised as females. Other rare forms of partial androgen insensivity exist, e.g., Reifenstein Syndrome(1, 3).Finally, genital ambiguity may occur in persons with multiple malformation syndromes(3).
Last, there are persons who have normal chromosomal and anatomical make-up and yet their gender does not conform to standards. This includes a range of “transgender” persons who are clinically identified as “Gender Identity Disorder”(7). Its prevalence is estimated at one per 30,000 in males and one per 100,000 in females(7). These persons have a strong and persistent cross-gender identification, which is the desire to be, or the insistence that one is, of the other sex. Accompanying this desire is a persistent discomfort with his or her gender. To varying degrees, these persons adopt the behavior, dress, and mannerisms of the other sex.
Thus, a closer examination of gender at the chromosomal, anatomical, and psychological levels reveals the problems of a dichotomous classification. It is increasingly recognized that gender is best described as a bimodal continuum, with two large groups comprising standard males and females overlapping with a smaller group of intersex persons(1, 2). If gender cannot be easily categorized, it will make a constitutional amendment about sex and marriage illusory. The medical field has an obligation to clarify this issue for policy makers and the general public.




References
1. Blackless M, Charuvastra A, Derryck A, Fausto-Sterling A, Lauzanne K, Lee E. How sexually dimorphic are we? Review and Synthesis. American Journal of Human Biology 2000; 12: 151-166.
2.Dreger AD. “Ambiguous sex”-- or ambivalent medicine? The Hastings Center Report 1998; 28(3):24-35.
3. Simpson JL, Elias S. Genetics in obstetrics and gynecology. Third edition. Philadelphia: Saunders, 2003.
4. Abramsky L, Chapple J. 47, XXY (Klinefelter’s syndrome) and 47, XXY: estimated rates of and indication for postnatal diagnosis for prenatal counseling. Prenatal Diagnosis 1997; 17: 363-368.
5. Lopez M, Torres L, Mendez JP, Cervantes A, Perez-Palacios G, Erickson RP, Alfaro G, Kofman-Alfaro S. Clinical and molecular findings in 46, XX males. Clinical Genetics 1995; 48:29-34.
6.Laue L, Rennert OM. Congenital adrenal hyperplasia: molecular genetics and alternative approaches to treatment. Adv Pediatr 1995; 42: 113-143.
7.American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Revised Fourth Edition. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 1994.

Betsy
05-13-04, 12:06 PM
The medical field has an obligation to clarify this issue for policy makers and the general public.

Unfortunately, medicine for a long time has been trying to "clarify" through the use of damaging scalpels. As the current AMA protocol and AAP protocol still sees a person with an intersex condition as a "social emergency" giving them further power to define us in the eyes of the law could lead to more disastrous results.

Granted, there are those in medicine that are enlightened enough to not take that route, but they are not out speaking out for fear of being ridiculed or worse, shunned by their more conservative colleagues.

I think the way to make the point is with a really good class-action attorney that will start damaging their pocketbooks---whether it is states having to use precious budget monies to defend against what will be a losing proposition or doctors who think surgically shaping genitals into their ideal.

Betsy

Sophie338
05-13-04, 12:45 PM
Hello Carl :)

This will be hard for me to explain so please bear with me :)

You have raised a good point and one I am very interested in. The description you have posted of the situation is using the terminology I have found problemmatic when discussing the genetics in finer detail. Please dont think I am opposing your viewpoint in my responce, quite the opposite, My comments (When discussing nomenclature) are about the terminology you have been told to use rather than the actual point which you are making so well.

I have read your post with some interest. I am a genetecist (Bio-informatics to be precice) and do understand what you are saying. My feeling are that society has been just a little too arbitrary with definitions of what is male or female.

There is something quite disturbing about this when genetics become part of the debate. You could easily read a more fatalistic tone into the idea of "Biologically fit for marriage" type arguments the statement "Marriage is fit for the 'genetically' pure" seems to be the underlying pattern in such debates. With such notions and those who advocate them, the word "lebensborn" springs to mind. It astounds me that such attitudes are seldom questioned.

You see DNA determines sex, not chromosomes. And given the really complex level of variability when you look at bases of DNA and not huge supercoils consisting of many millions of bases of DNA you see a completeley different picture. The notions of "genetics" when legislators are discussing chromosomes lacks clarity and resolution.

A good example of my point would be the example of a woman with XY chromosomes. With AIS this is usually due to a gene on the "X" chromosome (Locus Xq12) not coding for the androgen receptor. Now what makes this interesting is where the androgen receptor gene actually lies. On the X chromosome, the place where the layperson thinks all the "feminising happens".

To be "Genetically male" you have to have all the genes that make a male expressing in such a way as to produce a male phenotype. And in absolute truth, if society wants to be arbitrary, a male who is 100% male just does not exist. And that is a biological rather than social spectrum. If the MSRs in the Y Chromosome are missing or not expressed again you get a female phenotype. To make a male phenotype you need the MSRs. If they are absent or not expressed or lack consensus with other genes, do you have a "Genetic Male" or "Genetic female"?

Does the whole model stand when the exception proves to be
more widespread than originally believed? Is there really such a thing as "Genetic male or genetic female"?

Personally I think that the standard Ideal is an absurdity and while medicine professes to everyone else that XX = Girl XY = Boy, then the untruth of the standard ideal will look ever more absurd as genetics advances.

Mammals, in particular human beings are not as dimorphic as many would have you believe. I firmly believe that there will only be any progress in understanding the variability and the true nature of sex determination when the standard ideal is consigned to history. Along with other insidious ideals such as the "lebensborn".

The 23rd set/pair of chromosomes are significant in increasing the probability of the resultant sex, but the genes that lie within them are what really matter, as are the many genes in the autosomes that are also involved in the determination of sex.
And the influence of genes in the autosomes outwieghs the influences of the 23r set/pair of chromosomes

I believe that when the obsession on the part of society to use such arbitrary absurdities to determine sex, and when society stops using substitute terms like "Gender" when people dont fit the standard model. Then I think society will have matured enough to stop making life difficult for those who dont fit in with these standards.

I know as a psychiatrist, your training involved a lot of the standard terminology. So my comments about the terminology and the focus of discussion (Chromosomes) are not aimed at what your saying. Terms like "Gender" and "Chromosomes" often obscure and even undermine the nuances you describe. You have raised a really good point because you seem to have spotted what I have spotted.

I feel that if the variation were fully understood, or at least recognised, the the whole discussion about "same sex marriage" would reveal the disturbing beliefs held by those who talk of marriage in such a fatalistic way. I also feel that if the true variation were understood, people such as myself, defined as intersex would be free of the secrecy, stigma and shame.

I also think a lot of confusion has arisen with the idea of there being some social "Rainbow", some ideals seem to say that there are two "biological" sexes, but many social expressions (This is where "Gender" gets puzzling). But the biological variation is perhaps wider than the social. This is evidenced by the fact that everyone is a unique individual.

I personally think that "Biologically fit for marriage" is a very disturbing notion, and one that upon further scrutiny says more about the less than ethical undertones in society than it does about biology.

I hope my responce has been helpful, It is my personal responce.
as it is a subject that interests me because of how I percieve my condition.

All the best

Sophie

Dana Gold
05-13-04, 02:32 PM
VERY well stated:cool: .....and the TRUTH, Sophie!:) The lebensborn subjected to the quasi-eugenic lebensrecht philosophies advocated and carried out by the "correctors" to control the "impure".
That underlying and fastly held to principle is what fuels the medical and psychological machinations/mistreatments AND other abuses of anybody that is deemed NOT (anatomically, physiologically and/or psycho-socially) "pure" (normal) male or female as defined by the architects and subsequent practitioners of such a "system".

And Dr. Cohen: Your statement: "it will make a constitutional amendment about sex and marriage illusory" is absolutely correct. However the "controversy" over gender and same sex marriage is only but one of many "symptoms" manifested from "the root cause" as elucidated by my above and Sophie's statements.

Anybody ever see the movie Gattacca with Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman.....that's what I'm talkin' about!

Dana

Sofie
05-13-04, 04:17 PM
Which arguements do THEY use in the debate about a constitutional amendment banning people, that are not like THEM, from marriage?

I believe that medicine can advance the debate by providing a reasoned and nuanced discussion of the definition of gender.

I don't think those people are interested in a biological definition of gender. I think they are afraid of same sex relationships and homosexualtity.
A countrys judicial system simply is a tool and framework to enable all people to live together. Whenever a law is changed all citizens will have to live with the results. Making laws in favour of or against certain groups of people will eventually destabilize any judicial system. Those people trying to ban same sex marriages should know that they are harming themselves by jeopardizing the legal system. And if they don't, someone should explain it to them.

Sofie

Sophie338
05-13-04, 06:09 PM
Hello Sofie :)

Well they are obviously not interested in the underlying biology because what they describe as the biology is absurd.

The really distrubing point of all this is how they say nothing when they conduct, what is tantamount to radical and harmful surgery on children for "medical" (Social) reasons. And somehow when adults seek surgery, and consent to it for themselves. (I mean any body altering surgery) it is suddenly "unnatural".

The point is if they are nervous about same sex marriages, given the conflicting "Definitions" they use and the insane things they do to enforce those "Definitions". You are absolutely correct in saying they simply fear same sex marriage, and how legislation works. There is something strange going on when certain "religious" minorities seem hell bent on having their "Fundamental human rights" respected, that being the "fundamental human right" to take fundamental human rights from others they dislike. They must therefore consider themselves to be ethically, morally and biologically superior if they think that thier human right is to rob others of thier humanity.

The arguments they seem to use to enforce their "human right" to opress, dehumanise and vilify people they dont like seem to be presented with the sort of pseudoscience that characterised the lebensborn project. And we all know where that led.

I percieve, certainly the "purists" to be very dangerous and disturbed people. The TVC are an example. These people who oppose "same sex marriage" also seem to have a really big problem with intersex activists saying that mutilating children is wrong. The TVC start talking about this surreal concept of "Family" that is at best something akin to Stepford Wives.

The Marriage debate is something I find frightening, it illustrates who they consider to be human and who they dont, Ultimateley gender and sex dont enter into the equation. The Marriage debate is a symptom of something even more insidious.

All the best

Hugs

Sophie

Betsy
05-13-04, 06:25 PM
percieve, certainly the "purists" to be very dangerous and disturbed people. The TVC are an example. These people who oppose "same sex marriage" also seem to have a really big problem with intersex activists saying that mutilating children is wrong. The TVC start talking about this surreal concept of "Family" that is at best something akin to Stepford Wives.

Don't be too hard on them as they will be funding IAD. They just don't know it yet! :p

Betsy

Dana Gold
05-13-04, 06:37 PM
quote:

"They must therefore consider themselves to be ethically, morally and biologically superior if they think that thier human right is to rob others of thier humanity"

THE INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS:eek:

On a serious note: This discussion (about the people mentioned in the above quote) sounds like a "master race" concept that has been "sugar-coated" with "compassionate conservatism" and other propaganda......sick, dangerous whackos:mad:

Sophie338
05-13-04, 06:40 PM
Hi Betsy :D

I love it, that is well cool, Irony can be ironic :D

Many hugs

Sophie

Sophie338
05-13-04, 06:45 PM
Hi Dana :)

Funny you should say that, there is a christian fundamentalist movement UK who call themselves "Plan 9" or something similar.

:eek:

Many hugs

Sophie.

Dana Gold
05-13-04, 06:58 PM
http://www.lethargiclad.com/tor/plan9.html

;)

Sophie338
05-13-04, 08:17 PM
Hi Dana :)

Yup that was the movie that had crossed my mind when discovering these funadamentalists had used the name.

I just strikes me odd that they would use part of a title from such a surreal gothic movie.

All the best :)

Hugs

Sophie.

Carl Cohen
05-13-04, 11:08 PM
Sophie
Thanks for amplifying and clarifying my argument. i completely agree with your analysis.
Carl

Sophie338
05-14-04, 07:18 AM
Hello Carl :)

If it may be of any help I have written a number of articles on the subject of sex differentiation from a purely genetic rather than chromosomal perspective. I would be glad to foreword any copies to you. The articles are in part obervations I have made when studying DNA data and creating computer models of the resultant pathways and interactions. Some of the finer detail needs lab work, a resource not open to me at present.

If you feel it may be a good idea to present the case as we both seem to see it, I would be glad to assist in that.

All the best wishes

Sophie.

Carl Cohen
05-14-04, 12:13 PM
Sophie
I feel there is a need to get this point of view out to the general public as well as to assist those battling the same sex marriage amendment in the USA. I've tried a few places but I have not been that persistent. Part of my problem is that I am not an expert in this area. You have a much stronger background and a more sophisticated understanding of the issues. I would like to see your papers, and if you have any ideas on collaborating on wider dissemination, please share them and/or take the lead.
best,
Carl

Sophie338
05-14-04, 06:13 PM
Hi Carl :)

Sure thats no problem. Do you have an email address I can send
the articles to?

All the best :)

Sophie

Carl Cohen
05-14-04, 06:34 PM
Sophie
please send to cohenhenry@<hidden>
thanks
Carl