Talk:Lynn Conway

My recent edits and justification

Reasons behind my most recent edits to this article:

• Conway is a transsexual, indicating as such in this article will reduce confusion.
• Conway is legally a female, this is legal fact, and need be acknowledged, despite any particular bias against sex changes.
• While Conway was incorrect about David Reimer having female genitals, the results of the experiment are known and well-documented fact.
• Removal of pronouns refering to Conway, a compromise. Many readers of this article may reject that Conway should be refered to with female pronouns, however, it is recommended policy even at FoxNews to refer to a transsexual according to their gender identity, and not assignment at birth. Refusing to use female pronouns in an article indended to present fact about Conway, may open Conservapedia up to suit for defamation. (I'm looking out for the Wiki rather than pushing a POV point.) Site demonstrating that FoxNews has used female pronouns for a "transgendered" person: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312298,00.html

If I think of anything else that should need justification, I'll post it here --Puellanivis 19:02, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Just because something is legal does not make it ethical or legitimate. Biological, this person is still a man, and always will be. Just because he's been carved up and implanted with breast does not change that on a cellular lever he is a man. He has an X and Y chromosome, and will not experience menopause or menstruation. If I paint myself green and surgically insert scales into my back, then I am a human, not an alligator. Likewise, this person is still a man. Luke 19:23, 26 November 2007 (EST)

And you can certainly hold that opinion, however it is verifiable fact that Lynn Conway is legally a female. And I specifically put "legally", because I know that being legal does not make it ethical or legitimate. This is also the reason why I did not change pronouns in the article from "he" to "she", as I knew people would likely complain. Despite all of your feelings regarding this matter, a person still has a fundamental right to be addressed as the gender that they identify with. And honestly, if you literally bumped into Lynn Conway on the street, with all likelihood step back and apologize with "sorry, ma'am", as a natural reaction to Conway's appearance.

Disregarding all the issues of pronouns however, your definitions of a "man", and "woman" are however laden with a burden of biological mistakes that contradict your position. There are 46,XY humans are female, but likewise do not experience menopause or menstruation. (Androgen-Insensitivity Syndrome AIS) There are likewise 46,XX humans that are male, due to the effects of androgens during development. (Congenital adrenal hyperplasia).

You also, have not tested Conway's karyotype, and have no verifiable or even truthful position to state that Conway has an X and a Y chromosome. Nearly one in one hundred men have a 47,XXY karyotype. They literally have two X chromosomes, but since they also have a Y chromosome, with the Sex Determination Gene, their body developed to a man. Such men are typically also entirely sterile, because their cells cannot properly form into functional sperm.

Granted, you could label all of these mistakes of biology as "unethical and non-legitimate", however these conditions are really little different than a person being born without legs, or without arms. Both of which are far more common than transsexuality.

Covering the legal field again. As mentioned, Conway is legally a female, by legal fact. Publishing information that is knowingly contrary to fact about someone in order to evoke a negative opinion of that person is libel. It is by far in Conservapedia's, and everyone's interests to avoid defamation suits. --Puellanivis 19:49, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Whether some US state regards him as female is not relevant. Conservapedia has not (yet!) accepted the validity of transexualism as even being possible, let alone being ethical or "a right".

We need an article on LGBT advocacy or the unisex movement or something like that. --Ed Poor ^Talk 17:09, 7 December 2007 (EST)