“dear shay, i just got to know your blog from yahoo and its great. i mean you educate me bout lots of thing i didnt quite know before. i have this question that my friend asked me and i have no answers. so is it possible that men can develop female organs like a vagina inside?“
Uh right… just so you know, my sweet readers, this was copied verbatim from the e-mail he sent me. He must have been so worried about this question that he didn’t have time to use the shift key or to re-read his e-mail for clarity/grammar errors before clicking “send”. Guess I’d better hurry up and get to my answer!
This may surprise you, but the female form is actually the default for our species. This means that without the right hormones at the right time, someone who genetically should be a man (XY) will end up looking outwardly like a woman.
So in this sense, yes it is possible for a “man” to develop female organs – except that he would look completely like a woman. It’s not like he would look like a man on the outside and have a uterus and/or vagina tucked away inside his abdomen. In fact, it is quite the opposite: “he” would look like a woman but could have testicles tucked inside and no uterus!
The only way you’re going to see a vag on someone who looks like a man is with a well done F-M transsexual, like THIS; but keep in mind that they are still genetically a woman, though they might identify as male in gender.
Hope that helps clear things up.
I am a bit dissapointed that you did not mention the possiblity of hermaphrodites in response to the initial inquiry. There are a wide range of rare, yet possible, genetic and hormonal permutations that can indeed create an outward ‘male’ who has rudimentary internal female organs. Just as there are genetic and hormonal situations that can create a seeming ‘female’ with either an enlarged clitoris or even a redundant penis. There are even males and females, born genetically XY and XX respectivly, that, due to hormonal imbalances or faulty hormonal receptors, never develop penis or vagina, but remain devoid of external genetalia and even internal gonads (testes or ovaries).
The birth of such individuals is rare; and the presence of them in (and their acceptance by) socity is further decreased by the medical mutilations the large majority suffer before and during puberty in attempts to make them ‘normal’. Often these mutilations (or operations if you wish to not call them what they are) leave the ‘patient’ unable to obtain sexual fulfillment, and further isolates them from ‘normal’ society. This can cause sexual difficulties ranging from extreme fetishes to complete sexual apathy.
We live in a world where homosexuality is widely tolerated (and getting closer every day to being fully accepted) and where trans-sexual operations are a common occurance. Yet people often forget that there is not always a solid choice between male or female. Hopefully as more people accept that there are individuals who devate from the sexual ‘norm’ there will be a greater understanding of those who are born different from the ‘norm’ that even trained medical professionals feel that they need to be carved and shaped back into the choice of male or female, despite what their genetic makeup may say about it.
Because of the nature of development, an outward female with an enlarged, penis-like clitoris is way much more likely than an outward male with an underdeveloped uterus inside.
I also didn’t think there was much of a point bringing up cases that aren’t relevant (besides, individuals born without external genitalia rarely survive to reach puberty because of other complications).
There are also cases of things like fetus in fetu where the person was supposed to have a twin, but it was reabsorbed in utero for some reason. This can cause the presence of female organs in an otherwise normal male.
okay now we’re just getting silly here
Shay, darling, you deserve sainthood for putting up with these verbal shenanigans…and people, fo-reals! if you need a lecture on hermaphroditism, feel free to go peruse the wikipedia article on such things. and now, back to the fun!
Original Poster here…
Silly eh?
Why don’t you ask Lydia Fairchild how silly she thinks such a situation might be.
Excerpt from an article on Chimerism which can be found here: http://www.scq.ubc.ca/the-truth-about-chimeras/
“Most human chimeras, however, are not even aware of their conditions, because many of them appear completely normal. The most famous cases of chimerism to date are the linked cases of Lydia Fairchild and Karen Keegan. Fairchild was pregnant with her third child when she separated with her partner, James Townsend. In order to obtain state welfare, she had to prove that she was the biological mother of her two born children. It was discovered, through DNA testing, that it was impossible that she was the biological mother of her two children because she bore no genetic similarity to them whatsoever. A case of welfare fraud ensued because the prosecutors believed the DNA results to be irrefutable. Even the testimony of Dr. Leonard Dreisbach, the obstetrician who had helped Fairchild give birth, did little to persuade the court in Fairchild’s favor. The judge, perplexed by seemingly conflicting evidence, ordered that the third child, when born, to be tested as well. Surprisingly, the third child also showed no genetic similarities as well.
Fortunately for Fairchild, Karen Keegan also had similar experiences. Keegan needed a kidney transplant, and DNA testing for a compatible match with her two eldest sons showed that she had no genetic similarities to them at all. However, the doctors who worked with Keegan were familiar with the concept of chimerism and suggested that Keegan undergo further testing. Testing of her brothers and husband proved that her sons were related to them. Subsequent sampling of her skin and hair proved to be futile, but eventually matching DNA was found in her thyroid gland. It was the publication of this case, in the New England Journal of Medicine, which offered new insight on the case of Lydia Fairchild. Fairchild was found later on to be a chimera, with the second set of DNA found from her cervical smear. It was concluded that both Keegan and Fairchild were tetragametic chimeras.”
This poor woman almost lost her children and would have been procecuted for wellfare fraud had not open minds and scientific scruiteny intervened. I’m sure she would be overjoyed to have her situation called ‘silly’.
Just because a person has a rare genetic abnormality does not mean they should be marginalized and called ‘silly’. There are real people who deal with these very real situations in their lives on a daily basis, and things can be difficult enough without being called ‘silly’ or being accused of ‘verbal shenanigans’ by people who would rather remain ignorant of the existance of such abnormalities.
And had it not been for a lenghty operation when I was a child I would be the exact type of person the original question refered to.
I still don’t beleive we can equate a bit of abnormal cervical tissue with an entire uterus from a twin being left inside an otherwise normal male. I’m certainly no expert in this area, so thanks for the fascinating read in your comment.
Aside from that, I really don’t think that tetragametic chimeras is what this particular question was asking, because of the phrasing: he asked about men DEVELOPING female organs. And that is what I meant when I said “silly”.
shay- definately silly
and the worst part, someone was silly before me!
Why so combative?