Although a hard question to post,(first time post)yet none the less...i have been searching for quite some time now what  has so far proven to be an arduous frustrating and mostly  fruitless endeavor ... and remains to be a VERY  exhausting and often depressing search for credible information about other actual human hermaphrodites that is factual (and NON PORNOGRAPHIC!)and that is medical or scientific in nature and also deals with effective coping methods emotionally and phsycologically,of such people in society or at large that are true born human hermaphrodite people.any polite and or respectful communication is welcomed and will be valued,and any and all helpful insights or coping mechanisms that may come from this query will be especially most appreciated.thankyou very much.any understanding or help will be considered dear .thanks again so much,sincerely,from ,..just me
136764
Just a clarification-There arent any "true" hermaphrodites in humans-That would indicate that they could both become pregnant *and* impregnate another.  Humans sometimes can have partial external genitalia of both male and female, but do not have both functional testes and functional ovaries.\nAny medical school library would have a great deal of information on this.
660807
I dont think its odd..........but what about a very male looking butch??? thats what my partner is and I so agree about the male energy and female body!!! too many lesbians overlook just how incredible a butch can be..........I find the biggest problem (for me personally) with FTM is that the body changes so drastically when they are on male hormornes.......its not as female anymore.......give me breasts, hips, legs........etc......LOVE'EM!!!!
177044
Try this:\n\nSection 1\n1. What are the distinguishing features of a man from other genus?\n2. What are the distinguishing features of a man from other genus?\n\nSection 2\nIn combining the questions raised in section 1, further subject related questions become apparent:\n1. Does the basis to distinguish a man form other genus differ from that of a woman?\n2. Does the method to distinguish a man from other genus differ from that of a woman?\n3. Are the ideas to distinguish a man from other genus deifferent from that of a woman?\n4. Is this basis to distinguish X from Y different that X from Z?
109667
They are called "Hermaphrodytes", and they are BORN with both sex organs. They tend to have surgery to pick one or the other. They don't do surgery to give someone both sexes. \n\nLOL The "she/males" you speak of are men who want to be female, and have had breast implants, but have not yet had the "pole into a hole" surgery. So, they are a person with a penis and boobs.\n\nAre you cleared up on it now? :)
245556
Hermaphrodite is the correct name...This person is both male and female...it depends which sex/genda is more domineering as to what stands out.\n\nFor example:  A person looks female, but has a penis, but also has a uterus and ovaries for baby production.\nOr u can have a person that looks male but has a vagina.\n\nTo correct it depends on what the person wants there sex to be.  If they look female and want to be male they can have a hysterectomy where they remove all the uterus and leave them with a penis if they have them.\n\nIf it looks male then they do the opposite and can do the same surgery as above and make them female.
440413
Try one of these articles:\n\nhttp://members.boardhost.com/askdramy/msg/archive/22199.html\n\nhttp://www.rickmd.com/probdysp.htm\n\nhttp://www.obgyn.net/women/women.asp?page=/women/articles/dyspar_dah
62933
There was a special about this on the Discovery Channel (or maybe it was History, I mix them up all the time) that used the question of the possibility of Jesus's mother Mary conceiving a child while still being a virgin.  They base it on scientific theory of course and not on a belief in procreation by a Divine source.  In the end, they came to a conclusion that it is possible, and has happened at some point in the past, although i can't remember if being a hemaphrodite was a prerequisite or not.
570819
YES!\nhttp://www.medicine4men.com/malem.html
74475
Unfortunately female to male sex surgery to create a penis(phalloplasty) is not advanced enough to recreate most of the penile functionality. I believe the best results include a lengthening of the urethra to facilitate urination through the neo-penis, and an erectile implant that allows for an erection.\n\nThe tissue used in this type of surgery is usually harvested from the arm or leg.\n\nHowever as far as I know, the sensitivity of a normal male penis cannot be replicated with current technology.\n\nOn the other hand, Female to Male transsexuals can pass quite well. Although many of them are shorter than biological men. Facial features, facial hair, and voice deepening can all be achieved through hormone replacement therapy.\n\nTypically a female to male transsexual will undergo a mastectomy and hysterectomy to remove the breasts and uterus.
629874
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRG! I am so unbelievably sick of this question. I think I'm going to stop answering it pretty soon. Alright, look, someone I knew who worked at a mental health facility took care of someone who believed that lesbians were trying to take over his mind through electrical outlets. Can you prove that they weren't? No you cannot. Things that don't exist don't leave any "proof" to be had, because THEY DON'T EXIST. Does that make them true? Certainly not. I don't need any proof to tell me that no lesbians were trying to take over his mind through electrical outlets, do you?
89031
Scientists have reported that they've found an "extremely unusual" trait in the cells of some mothers with two or more gay sons, providing more evidence to suggest that homosexuality might be inherited.\n\n\nMothers of multiple gay sons were about six times more likely than other women to process their X chromosomes in a certain way, researchers discovered.\n\n\nResearchers aren't entirely sure what the findings mean, said study co-author Sven Bocklandt, a postdoctoral researcher at UCLA. Making things more complicated, about 75 percent of mothers of multiple gay sons don't have the trait.\n\n\nStill, the study, released Tuesday in the journal Human Genetics, raises plenty of questions, Bocklandt said, especially as researchers try to figure out whether homosexuality has genetic roots and if there truly is a "gay gene" -- or genes.\n\n\n"What everybody wants is the gene, and we don’t have it yet," Bocklandt said. "But this is an independent confirmation that the X chromosome is involved."\n\n\nBocklandt and colleagues looked at a phenomenon known as X-chromosome inactivation, in which cells inside the bodies of females automatically turn off -- or inactivate -- one of their two X chromosomes. That leaves them with one working X chromosome -- just like males, who have a single X and a single Y chromosome.\n\n\nNormally, each cell in a female's body randomly turns off one or the other X chromosome. In some cases, such as when families share a genetic disease, there is "extreme skewing" -- one X chromosome is more likely to be turned off than the other, Bocklandt said.\n\n\nIn the new study, the researchers looked at 97 mothers of one or more gay sons and 103 women with no gay sons to see what their blood cells did with their X chromosomes. The researchers recruited many of the women with the help of PFLAG.\n\n\nThey found that nearly a quarter of the mothers of multiple gay sons inactivated the same X chromosome -- in other words, nonrandomly -- compared to just 4 percent of the women without gay sons. Of those with one gay son, 13 percent inactivated the same X chromosome.\n\n\nDr. Ionel Sandovici, a genetics researcher at the Babraham Institute in Cambridge, England, who is familiar with the research findings, cautioned that the study is small, with just 44 mothers of multiple gay sons being examined. More research in larger groups must be done to confirm the results, Sandovici said.\n\n\nThe research does provide "circumstantial evidence" that the X chromosome contributes to the development of male sexuality, Sandovici said. But "we still understand very little about molecular mechanisms of sexual orientation, and this seems to be rather a complicated biological puzzle."\n\nBut of course its Nature vs. Nurture and its possible that the person could just become gay because of his environment/experiences or just be born that way.
620350
You might want to do a little reading about hermaphroditism before you start asking such silly questions. \nHermaphrodites are people who have the external sexual characteristics of both sexes. They can choose which they prefer to be, and have surgery to remove the excess organs. But they are rarely fully developed. Most often they are almost vestiginal and in some cases their condition is overlooked in childhood and doesn't become evident until they hit puberty. \n\nCan't you find something better to do than pose such stupid questions as these?
72127
How come people show concern about it this much?  Like some other person said, for a big number of the world male population this is normal.  I think this is one of the things that have been recorded on people's mind, I swear.  Why there is not a lot of repulsion toward the female reproductive organ.  As I see it, there are more opportunities for it to be of concern.  A lot more of skin goin this way and the other.  A cavity for breeding of all kind of nasties.  But you know, I am not concerned, because I was not taught in that belief (maybe I should)
246247
Where exactly is this RYT Hospital?  And where is this alleged Dwayne University (a web search turned up nothing--other than the RYT Hospital stuff)?  Furthermore, what self-respecting scientist would actually publish a graph made in Excel?  And what the hell are those graphs supposed to be showing?  The data is nonsensical.\n\nSorry folks, this is all a joke.  There is no pregnant human male.\n\nI'll take that 10 pts, thank you very much.
573618
I have the same problem. My understanding of genetics does not support a "gay gene"; however it is very possible and more frequent then most people think that certain males are exposed to more female hormones than normal and vice versa for females. These hormones (similar to how animals are attracted to one another) can influence whether or not and individual is attracted to males or females. Also (using males as an example) if a boy was exposed to or born with more female hormones and thus acts more feminine, he will most likely be attracted to someone who is opposite to him (hence masculine). It is more natural for feminine and masculine to attract rather than simply male or female. For example I am naturally more attratced to masculine guys, rather than feminine guys. I am not attracted to masculine women ("dykes") simply because society has taught me not to be attracted to women from birth, so my sexual preference is trained towards males...
237044
Whoa! Thanks so much for the LOGICAL information against evolution, especially the lie about us being 99 percent identical to chimps. I knew about some of the other forgeries, but thanks. What's disturbing, though, is that some of these things are still promoted by biology teachers in school as fact. For example, the industrial melanism and peppered moth example has still been used in high school biology courses, even AP Biology. Thanks for all the information; it definitely strengthens the idea of a God who wouldn't let this all happen by chance. \nThe only question that remains for the evolutionists, though, is why. Why would they want to support an idea that says we are related to monkeys? Why would they want to downgrade the status of man like this? I simply don't understand it. Though, according to classification, we are primates, we are much greater than that. We are humans. It mystifies me as to why evolutionists can't accept this idea.
397145
Wrote a few points in this group post I have.  I essentially argue for both sides on theological, philisophical, and practical point of view.  I don't think scientific point of view helps much.  Scientists are still looking for the 'gay' gene, and there are still no definite proof of homosexuality, in humans, that is.\n\n\nXR