Hmm wouldn't that break their minds.

[kengr]

Something reminded me of a paper I encountered online a few months back.

Seems there are actual XY females. FERTILE ones.

Female bodies, right down to a uterus and ovaries. And the first one they discovered turned out to be third generation. Yes, her mother and grandmother turned out to be XY as well.

I forget what chromosome the gene responsible for this was on, but it wasn't on the XY pair.

It brings up some really interesting possibilities though. As well as the potential for breaking some people's minds.

Comments

[freetrav.livejournal.com]

Fertile, but probably lower fertility than XX females - some (half?) of their ova would carry a Y chromosome; if one such were to be fertilized by a Y-carrying sperm, you end up with Something Not Viable.

[kengr]

Yeah, but that won't lower fertility as much as you might think. Seems that with newer research it turns out that women have a *lot* of "failure to implant" of fertilized ova, as well as *really* early miscarriages/spontaneous abortions.

Which, btw, makes the "life begins at conception" folks even *bigger* idiots.

[seawasp]

Yep. I was in a discussion recently with someone doing the old "They have a Y chromosome, they're a man, and all the operations in the world won't change it" , and using that evidence pretty much shut him up.

[kengr]

And AIS/CAIS don't help his case any either. Nor things like XYY, XXY etc.

I wrote a very short story about that sort of thing and what trying to "enforce" XX is female, XY is male would likely result in...

http://bigclosetr.us/topshelf/fiction/55415/intended-consequences

[stickmaker.livejournal.com]

I've read that something called the SRY gene must be active for a human to have male characteristics.