[Paul C. Jesup]

If you mean my statement that chormosomes are the most important determinant of a person's sex as opposed to your statement that hormones are more important than chromosomes--then here's my question to you and to medical science:

What you don't seem to understand is that DNA is the blue print, but hormones are the building blocks. Now, in sometimes the hormones produced in the womb ignores either XX or XY and creates the child into the opposite gender.

Does anyone lacking the Y chromosome ever grow testes that produce sperm containing Y chromosomes?

Actually yes. But it is rare. Most of the time the man is sterile.

If not, then they are not male.

You have a very shallow opinion of what it is to be a man. Why don't you include all males who are sterile.

And if the scientific establishment disagrees with me about this--then the scientific establishment needs to rethink its definition of sex.

Now that is a very arrogant statement. Your ego is beginning to show.

[Age of Reason]

What you don't seem to understand is that DNA is the blue print, but hormones are the building blocks. Now, in sometimes the hormones produced in the womb ignores either XX or XY and creates the child into the opposite gender.

I understand that perfectly well (though I doubt that a child of the truly opposite gender is created).

But if sex is determined by hormonal exposure in the womb, then to change an adult's sex, let medicine first transform the patient into a fetus again and return him to life in a womb, that the patient may properly develop in the manipulated hormone bath; because it would not be exposure to hormones but exposure to hormones at certain stages of fetal development that would, according to your example, determine sex.

If that is (as yet) medically impossible, then is it (as yet) medically impossible to change a person's sex.

Actually yes. But it is rare. Most of the time the man is sterile.

You mean someone who hasn't a Y chormosome in her body, has them in her sperm? How is that so? Something can't be right here--those can't be "real" Y chromosomes--sounds more like damage to the X chromosome is costing that X one leg--if so, what (if any) kind of male child might that produce?

You have a very shallow opinion of what it is to be a man.

I find judging a person's sex by the shape of the body to be a superficial opinion of what it is to be a man.

I view the body as a kind of life-support system for its underlying genetic structure.

Now that is a very arrogant statement. Your ego is beginning to show.

It wouldn't be the first time the medical establishment was wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time a layman set their thinking straight.

And if there is one thing doctors are dopes about, it is sex and everything else outside of their medical specialty--and experience shows we can't even trust their opinion with that, even.