20 comments

[ 5.6 ms ] story [ 58.6 ms ] thread
Amazing. One if the most interesting parts of the article though is that this is such a known phenomenon in practice, not only in theory. Just goes to show what 0.3% works out to when you're on the scale of modern populations.

Personally I also find it admiral how positive people can be in such circumstances. I would be wracked with anxiety in this situation, as the husband at least. But thankfully it seems like our drive to have children overrides many things that would otherwise terrify us.

[flagged]
This is offensive
Why? I'm just pointing out that there is an adoption rate for anything, even something that you yourself don't want or wouldn't understand.
Because people want the outcome and not the process.
> I joke that you can sell anything eventually if you talk to enough people, because if 0.3% of people want to cut off their own genitals (trans person rate), then you can surely find atleast that rate of people for your __whatever___.

Referring to a sex change as "cutting off their own genitals" is deliberately meant to frame it as absurd or bad compared to more clinical terminology. Your statement is that it is so absurd or bad and yet has some takers ergo any product no matter how bad or undesirable will itself find a market.

This is first of all fundamentally insulting. Second it doesn't make any sense. Those who undertake such surgery aren't choosing between having gender reassignment and a corgi.

Lastly you can't sell shit you don't understand. This is like sales 101.

Wrong. I hate certain cars. I'll never understand why anyone would buy a lifted truck with oversize wheels and low profile tires. I think it's an abomination. I can still find a buyer for it and sell it to them.
You understand the utility of trucks, what they're for, what is good and bad about them. You rattled of the elements of a known aesthetic it seems to me that you do in fact understand them even if you don't personally like it.
It's not a "sex change", just cosmetic surgery to mimic the outward appearance of the opposite sex genitals. For males who undergo this, it literally does involve cutting off genitalia - the testicles are excised and disposed of. The penis is inverted to make a pelvic cavity, and the scrotum is reshaped to look somewhat like labia.

The absurd part is, of course, the belief that this surgery turns these men into women, or changes their sex from male to female.

I do not think it is offensive because you did not say anything negative about that group of people, but I think they find it offensive because when framed like that it exposes some of the absurdity of that act, which could make them question their own self definition.

Human actions often carry absurdity. I think we should recognise it and accept it, instead of trying to ignore it and hope it will disappear (hint, it won't)

Could we not do this kind of shit here please? Using trans people as the punchline of a joke is offensive and sends the message that we're not welcome here.
You're making me feel like I'm not wanted here, because I like making a joke about trans people. Why is that ok, yet my feelings aren't?
You know perfectly well why.
If I did, do you think I would have made the joke, and then also written that exact statement asking the question.
I always feel weird to think just how common a 0.1% is actually on any slightly bigger population. It is 1 in 1000. Or 100 in 100k and in this case 300... Which isn't actually so many.

And then you start listing up these sort of "rare" conditions and wonder where do we actually end up and how much overlap there is.

Sometimes I feel the opposite. A condition might be described as affecting "only 1% of people" as if to say it's rare and I'm thinking that's so extremely common. I could walk into a highschool and there would be multiple people affected. Or maybe someone in my office has this right now.

Even 1 in 100,000 type conditions mean that multiple people in my city have it nevermind the region.

So do women with two uteruses have two menstrual cycles? Could she be menstruating and not at the same time?

> The fact both ovaries ovulated at the same time, or around the same time, is pretty astounding

Seems to imply that she’s having two menstrual cycles, one for each uterus/ovary.

Aren’t the ovaries usually “in sync”? They take turns ovulating?

>So do women with two uteruses have two menstrual cycles?

No, they don't. Uterus didelphys is caused by two tubes that normally join during fetal developed not joining. There are still only 2 ovaries. Though the bleeding might be irregular due to physical reasons.

Even if ovaries were doubled, there wouldn't be two cycles as hormones are centrally regulated and wouldn't be able to target specific ovaries.

So does that mean that a woman with uterus didelphys is no more likely than any other woman to release two eggs during ovulation?