can transvestites have kids?
370936
If all the parts are intact, yes.
19206
Of course it's possible!  And as long as you do not plan on having children, everything will be fine.  But if you do want to have children someday, then they have a good chance of coming out with certain damage, both physical or mental, so think about that one real good.  Other than that, it does not matter.
188787
I would say Yes, they may change the fathers name on birth certificate though.  Pretty noble men there, both of them. \nSeems like more men would run away, as fast can be.  The child is lucky to have two men that want to be a father to them.
515590
Some of the people who answer these things are just guessing for two points - and have no clue what a transsexual is.  Boy George is gay, Ru Paul is a drag queen.  None of these is transsexual.  Look it up in the dictionary people!  Alexis Arquette is correct (forgot who answered that) and also Renee Richards (doctor and tennis player).  There is also a race car drive (the name escapes me) who raced as a man and now races as a woman.  Unfortunately, trans people have been in the closet most of the time (unless outed), but slowly we've been able to see more and more trans people in the public eye.
638477
Depends on whether you are refering to transvestites or transexuals- Either way, just put a google search in for one or the other, and the words " support group" or "organization"- then click on the filter button to filter out the adult content, and you should find a lot of info/
1082126
I think you have put to much thought into this. They are not exactly evil, although you are right about one thing. It is wrong. I think only men and women should do that kind of stuff. If they adopt kids, then their kids have a chance of being gay also. If they refuse to be with the opposite gender, then, they should not pass it on. Before you know it, we might all be gay if they do decide to adopt kids. They should at least let their kids know that what they do is wrong.
800997
It doesn't and shouldn't.\n\nYes, we are gay/lesbian, yes it's true that two gay males or two lesbians cannot have children together without outside "aid." This is a known fact.\nIt is also a known fact that an infertile female or male cannot have children with either males OR females, therefore the argument is moot.\n\nI am a lesbian, I have a son, a biological child whom my partner and I have raised together for the past ten years. He does have a father, whom he has a relationship with, albeit strained, but he does know his father. My partner is to my son, another parental figure whom he respects moreso than even his legal step-mother who is married to his father. \n\nHe has never had to "explain" to anyone about his parents (my partner and myself). His friends simply aren't that shallow. They know he has good parents and he is well cared for. It doesn't matter to him or his friends that we are a lesbian couple. He has never been picked on, bullied or lost friends because of who his parents are. He is not depressed or a loner, he's out going and is well liked. \n\nThere have been studies done by respected, peer reviewed organizations/associations who have found that children raised by same sex couples are no more likely to be gay themselves, are usually better adjusted and more tolerant than children raised by opposite sex parents. \n\nChildren raised by same sex parents are children who are WANTED. Same sex couples have to put more attention and more dillegence into either attaining a child, becoming pregnant or retaining custody of their natural children...same sex couples actually WANT these kids, they are more willing to do anything to provide stable, loving homes for their children. \nSame sex couples go out of their way to teach their children tolerance, acceptence, honesty and love...unconditional love.
917955
No, they are hermaphrodites, so the question does not apply, for obvious reasons.
1059473
Yes, you can totally have children after surgery unless they remove both of your ovaries, it they remove half, or one of your ovaries you can still have children, again the only way you wouldn't be able to have children is if they removed BOTH ovaries!!! I have the same problem except in have 7 in one ovarie and 3 in the other one!!!Good Luck!!!
837244
She could be. However, a lot of controversy comes with that. When they created Mommy Barbie, she was pregnant but did not have a wedding ring on her finger.
1185677
not unless they have 2 uterus's
1009651
Hermaphrodites don't usually have both genitalia, more often then not there is a penis and a uterus/ovaries.  Most children have to have the surgery while very young and then remain on hormone therapy the rest of their lives.  So to answer your question, if a child born this way is assigned the male gender and later grows up to prefer the company of men then he is gay and vice verse.
925777
It is said possible but practically not prooved. It has never been done completly. Only until a specific state and then it was put into a utero. Especially not with humans as it is against the human rights. But technically it it the same with every mammal. But even it has not be done I strongly belief it is possible and when not now, then certainly in a few years.\n\nGreetings Dr.Seuss
466783
It is possilbe for epelipsy people to have kids.
669767
No.  Only femals cows exist.  No one knows where they come from since a community of all females, even if they resort to bovine lesbianism, still can't produce young.  It's a mystery all right...
845870
No; that's solely for the mother. The parentage would be equally distributed between the mother and the father if they did have them - kind of like the way a seahorse mates.
244052
This article would lead me to believe that the answer is no, at least, not without some kind of written agreement between the mother and yourself...http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20060321.html\n\nRelevant passage:\nDubay's Strongest Argument: Mothers Can Give Up Children for Adoption\n\nDubay makes one argument that is far more difficult to rebut than the others. It is that after a woman has a baby, in Michigan and elsewhere, she has the right to give up that baby for adoption. If she exercises that right, she cuts off her own financial responsibility to the child, along with other parental rights and responsibilities. A man, by contrast, may not relinquish his financial responsibility for an unwanted child unless the biological mother shares his wish to give up the child for adoption.\n\nDubay asks: Why shouldn't men have the same right that women have? And doesn't the law engage in sex discrimination by offering one sex an option that the other lacks?\n\nIn considering these questions, we need to examine how the different approaches to adoption arose in the first place. It is not difficult to imagine that sex-role stereotypes played a role. Traditionally, in the United States, the law made three assumptions about parenthood: the mother's proper role is that of nurturer; the father's proper role is that of "breadwinner"; and every child, if at all possible, should be part of a nuclear family. Under this set of assumptions, a number of conclusions would seem to follow:\n\nIf a woman is unwilling to nurture (or "mother") her child, the law cannot force her to do so. In fact, a child in the custody of an uninterested mother is a child in danger of abuse or neglect. Therefore, if a woman gives birth to a child for whom she does not wish to care, the law would be doing the baby no favors by leaving him or her with the rejecting mother. Adoption would seem a mercy to both mother and baby.\n\nA father who is unwilling to pay for his offspring can, however, safely be forced to pay nonetheless, just as he could be required to provide financial support for his wife or ex-wife. Nothing about the money that he might pay is compromised by his unwillingness to spend it. Financial support - the "father's job" -- can be an impersonal contribution in a way that care and nurturance - the "mother's job" -- simply cannot. It is therefore a "no-brainer," if one embraces these traditional assumptions, that if a man sires a child, he must do his duty by that child and pay money for its support.\n\nThe third assumption, again, is that children should - if at all possible - grow up in two-parent male/female households. If we share this assumption, as the law has done in the past (and, to a lesser extent, continues to do), it follows that when a couple splits up before a baby is born, the baby is better off if the mother gives him up to a family containing two parents. Adoption is thus a desirable turn of events and should not only be allowed but encouraged. \n\nWomen, though, are often quite attached to their babies and prefer to keep them, regardless of where the father might be. In such a case, the child gains nothing, and loses much, if the father decides not to provide financial support for his biological baby.\n\nHowever such assumptions developed, they are no longer fair, and rest on outmoded and discriminatory assignments of responsibility. Women currently participate in the workforce in overwhelming numbers, even if their wages continue to lag behind those of their male counterparts. And men participate in nurturing their children far more than they used to; indeed, there are a growing number of "stay-at-home" dads in this country, and their contribution to day-to-day caring for their babies is profound. Under these conditions, it would be as practical to require women who give up their babies to pay child support to custodial fathers, as it is to requi