But those adaptations you described have an evolutionary purpose, while most intersex conditions don't -- at least to an immediate observer.

"To an immediate observer" is the operative term her.

Variation in genetic makeup, including "weird" accidents like chromosomal hermaphroditism, don't exist because they serve a specific purpose for the species. They exist to provide the species with options, from a survival point of view, if one (very unexpected) day all of the "conventional" members of a population suddenly die out or something equally drastic from a genetic propagation point of view.

Diversity ought to make us feel more secure, rather than less, because it's a sign that we have herd resilience. The same is as true for genetic diversity as it is for the cultural sort.

rejecting ugly children more readily than do men, does this also apply to ugly genitalia?

if so, what does it say?

if not, what does THAT say?

For the most part, these letters illustrate the virulent hatred routinely directed in America at transgendered and intersex people. The letters also speak, loudly and smugly, in the voice of red-blooded American heterosexist bigotry and contempt.

This level of sexual immaturity is pathetic and inexcusable. It might even be laughable, too, if not for the mortal threat it presents to so many people who are certainly different but not at all "abnormal" (or, heaven forfend, "unnatural"), and whose only crime is to have excited the rampant insecurities of unimaginative binary-centric sexual cretins.

Well done, Mr. Callahan.

but because they don't want to pick the wrong gender, and the only way to know what gender the child's brain is is to wait.

Isn't leaving the child in an interminate state just going create a different, equally painful, situation?

I do not feel any disrespect towards anyone who is intersex, and I welcome any effort to promote public acceptance of their condition. But what purpose does it serve to make this obviously false conflagration that 'we are all intersex'? If he had posited we are all bisexual- I could almost buy into that; But all intersex we clearly aren't. Most of the intersex conditions stem from genetic defects of one sort or another. Let's be clear about this- genetic defects are not normal. They are defects. We need to understand and hopefully prevent them in the future.

When the baby was born, the parents sent out a birth announcement welcoming their baby girl. They named her Megan.

I heard through the grapevine that the baby did have surgery.

When Megan was about age 5, she announced in no uncertain terms that she was a boy. Her parents agreed, she picked a boy name, and now she is a he. Mike is about 8 or 9 years old now, wears baggy shorts, sloppy T-shirts, and was sporting a mohawk last time I saw him.

From what little I know, it appears as though the parents arbitrarily picked a gender, and they chose wrong. So they now have a son with female genitalia.

These are wonderful, caring parents. They did what they thought was the right thing, encouraged by the team of doctors they worked with. Mike seems happy and healthy. But he hasn't gone through puberty yet, which I guess will be a trying time for him and his parents. If they could have a do-over, maybe they would have postponed surgery so that the child could decide eventually whether to have surgical intervention.

My puny brain cannot fathom that a Catholic priest would ever say anything that goes against official Church doctrine. Pure crazy talk.

Besides, if this story is true, then obviously this "priest" is not really a priest, but instead a minion of the Father of Lies aka the Boogeyman. So to call him a Catholic priest is not really true in any case.

priests have molested children. why is it so hard for you to believe one could counsel suicide?

priests are not infalliable.

I'm 'Merican!

Luckily, not all the letters in this thread are in this vein and vanity, like those letters written by editorlaura, calderon, and Amity.

So much of the gender reassignment psychology and surgery seems like hubris. Surgeons want to solve problems by cutting. Psychologists like John Money believed that gender is a social construct, and you could childrear it out of a kid by telling him (her?) firmly that he/she was a BOY or, in most cases, since the surgical fix was easier, a GIRL. It took years to figure out how tragically wrong this approach was.

Kids will be cruel, my ass. How often in school did anyone see YOUR genitals? Mine (I'm female)? NEVER. Even when showering, it wasn't a problem. I suspect that boys with exceptionally large or small genitals--to the point of personal embarrassment--have always found ways to not be seen during showers.

IMHO, the ONLY person who should get a vote as to which gender to assign a baby with ambiguous genitals to is that baby--at adolescence or adulthood. No scalpel should touch those genitals until that time.

Was not going to comment, but read so much hatred and ignorance on this thread I must respond.

Any doctor would describe me physically as unequivocally male, and my sexual behavior (and pleasure) is unequivocally hetero. I was raised in a fundamentalist society. Nevertheless it was clear to me early on that I and every other human was a mix of "female" and "male" characteristics, and that those categories are so broad and simple-minded as to be extremely misleading.

The point is not what artificial category you wish to put a person in, but the quality of that person's being.

And for those who insist that no priest would EVER do such a thing. Oh come on. Are priests not human? Do you seriously maintain NO priest EVER has violated the confidence of the confessional, that NO priest EVER would recommend suicide?

On precisely the same sort of evidence, I conclude that NO priest EVER has molested young boys.

Kudos to the commenter who pointed out that evolution does not drive uniformly to a preset goal, but is opportunitistic, and so depends on variation.