
A village where little girls turn into boys aged twelve (2015) - rishabhd
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/12/the-astonishing-village-where-little-girls-turn-into-boys-aged-1/
======
amingilani
If someone finds an animation on this, please share. I'm so interested in
seeing how this change looks like. Apparently, the real world trumps the
limits of my imagination.

~~~
mfoy_
You'd probably get a decent understanding by studying how fetuses develop, as
it's the same fundamental process.

~~~
jacquesm
That is one of the most interesting things you can do if you're interested in
biology, embryology tells an incredible story.

------
segmondy
There's a documentary on Netflix (9 months that made you) 3 episodes that
covers this for those curious about more details. The episode were this was
discussed was either in 1 or 2.

------
ALee
This line. The idea that diversity, strange, or abnormal may not be beneficial
to society doesn't make sense. Innovation can literally be anywhere.

“By a quirk of chance Dr Imperato’s research was picked up by the American
pharmaceutical giant, Merck. They used her discovery to create a drug called
finasteride, which blocks the action of 5-α-reductase.

“It is now widely used to treat benign enlargement of the prostate and male
pattern baldness. For which, I’m sure, many men are truly grateful.”

------
StavrosK
What's interesting to me is that these boys are raised as girls but feel like
boys, which means that there's something physical that makes us "feel our
gender". Although, the article doesn't really mentions whether there are many
boys who go the other way, who resent a penis growing because they liked being
girls.

~~~
jacquesm
> What's interesting to me is that these boys are raised as girls but feel
> like boys, which means that there's something physical that makes us "feel
> our gender".

Transgenders are real, is what you are concluding. That's not really news.

~~~
curiousgeorgio
...or just that there is a strong connection between sex and gender. The fact
that there are (a small minority of) people who feel "intense, persistent
gender incongruence" (gender dysphoria) does not mean that it should be simply
considered a "normal course of life" any more than clinical depression is a
normal course of life. While legitimizing transgender identities through
legislation may help to reduce negative social stigmas (a good thing), it can
also be harmful to individuals experiencing those feelings.

~~~
JenBarb
When do you think it would be harmful to a person who identifies as
transgender to have their feelings acknowledged as real?

~~~
djsumdog
Gender reassignment surgery. John Hopkins stopped preforming the surgery for
years. There are pretty prevalent trans women, like Kate Bornstein, have
acknowledged that she couldn't really consider herself a full woman
afterwards; that she couldn't experience periods, pregnancy and many of the
other aspects of being a woman.

This is a very touchy subject so hear me out. Anorexic can be caused by a type
of body dysphoria; meaning you always see yourself as fat -- a disconnect
between who you are and what's in the mirror. Same goes for people who feel
like they need a part of their body amputated in order to be complete. Some
surgeons preform amputations on these people, more out of fear that they'd try
to preform amputation themselves. But is this healthy? This gets into a very
complex discussion on what is health/mental health.

I'm totally for people changing their gender roles or adding things from
opposite gender roles. Throughout history we see major roles associated with
either men or women change. From the Greeks to the Sumerians to the Romans,
the idea of what men and women do in society can change quite a bit. Today we
might acknowledge it's more fluid and we don't have to be locked into these
social constructions. We redefine gender as the social construction and sex as
the biological XX/XY chromosome types.

When people throw around "mental illness" with "transgender" it is never to
uplift, but almost always to denigrate. It's a conservative thing and it's
terrible. If they are having trouble identifying with themselves, and want to
change their bodies drastically, essentially mutilating themselves (to quote
South Park, "You mean I'm just a man with a mutilated penis?") we should ask
ourselves .. is that a good thing? Maybe you can look and act and be like a
woman/men, but accept what you were born biologically as a man/women.

I wish there was a way to talk about body dysphoria in a way that was helpful
and not hateful, and maybe talk about how progressives can be for gender role
fluidity and transgendered individuals, yet also acknowledging that
reassignment surgery may be a bad thing and a sign people's view of themselves
may not be in line with reality or beneficial to their overall well being.

It's a very dangerous issue to touch.

~~~
dhimes
I care only about one thing: Ten years after the surgery, are the people who
underwent sex reassignment surgery happier than they were before? To my
knowledge the answer is not conclusive- partially because it's difficult to
find the folks for the follow-up survey.

~~~
djcapelis
The APA, AMA and other APA all seemed to find enough evidence to pass very
clear resolutions calling for sex reassignment surgery to be considered a
clear and effective medical intervention.

I know we are on Hacker News where everything must be done from first
principles with whatever knowledge happens to be rolling around in the head of
the person writing the comment, but this stuff is pretty settled folks.

~~~
Orou
Chemotherapy is a "clear and effective medical intervention". It doesn't mean
that there are no meaningful repercussions or that it is right for everyone
equally, unequivocally, and unconditionally.

The long-term implications of sexual reassignment surgery are far from
settled.

~~~
throwawayknecht
Individuals undergoing chemotherapy also don't have their treatment constantly
second-guessed by message board trolls.

~~~
yorwba
I wouldn't be so sure about that. I can imagine a wide spectrum of comments
from worried family members "Are you sure you want to put yourself through
this? Maybe you should just let nature run it's course." to trolls
intentionally prodding the insecurities of the cancer patient.

------
jacquesm
Only roughly half of them become men at the age of 12 years, the remainder are
normal females.

~~~
microcolonel
Meanwhile in reality; they were about half female, and about half male to
begin with.

The word "girl" used to refer generally to young children, probably because
they don't really start to differentiate much visually before puberty.

~~~
mfoy_
Good point. But I don't think most people realize that if it weren't for the
way adults decorated their children, their sexes would be wholly invisible.

People seem to generally be more comfortable when they can put a label on
things...

~~~
microcolonel
Well, they're not wholly invisible, but close enough to it that they can
typically share clothes as a practical matter. You can expect in about 99.5%
of cases that your child will identify with the gender corresponding to their
sex, so people dress their kids up in miniaturized adult clothing matching
their likely gender, in anticipation of adulthood. This seems to have started
with the rich, and as societies get more generally rich, more people typically
start wanting the same things.

The sexes are quite visible before puberty in terms of behaviour, just not so
much in external development.

I'm not much against gender roles, I don't see the problem with them. From a
practical perspective, it seems like people will do better if they are
familiarized, from an early age, with the role they'll almost inevitably seek
to fill to at least some extent. Worst case you find out you've been somewhat
wrong at around puberty, and you adjust from there.

~~~
Mz
_I 'm not much against gender roles, I don't see the problem with them. From a
practical perspective, it seems like people will do better if they are
familiarized, from an early age, with the role they'll almost inevitably._

I am a woman who was one of the top ranked students of my graduating class. I
see lots of problems with it. An awful lot of the social construct of girl's
lives only works if you "marry well" and if marrying well is the only thing
you want out of life. You run into a fuckton of serious friction between that
social construct and wanting an education, making your own money, being gay
and on and on and on.

As just one side of the story. I also did not want my sons to grow up and not
know how to, for example, feed themselves properly. This has serious health
consequences and just fundamentally should not be someone else's
responsibility.

~~~
microcolonel
> _An awful lot of the social construct of girl 's lives only works if you
> "marry well" and if marrying well is the only thing you want out of life._

To the extent that this is the expectation on women, it is the expectation on
men to be husband material. Straight women in western society are legally and
culturally responsible for choosing a husband if they want one (and most do).

The majority of women (and men) want to have kids, either ASAP or eventually,
and the best way to raise kids is in a stable marriage. When people encourage
you to do this, entirely at your option, they are reinforcing very reliable
advice.

If you want an advanced education, great! Nobody has the right to stop you,
and nobody should have the right to force you either. Anyone who feels they
have the determination and desire to contribute to science or business, and is
so passionate that they are willing to forego or delay their personal
development, should feel the full support of society.

> _I also did not want my sons to grow up and not know how to, for example,
> feed themselves properly._

Cooking food, especially staple meals, is not gender specific. Every man I
know can cook local staple meals (pasta and sauce, omelettes, chili, chicken
and vegetable soup, [sometimes soy sauce based vegetable soups, depending on
social group]), I see no difference in general adherence to common dietary
advice except that the guys maybe like red meat more.

Mere adherence to a gender role is not a moral good in and of itself; but that
shouldn't turn people off of them. They give structure on matters that you
don't feel all that passionate about.

~~~
Mz
You are cherry picking. In social settings where gender roles are pretty
strictly enforced, men are actively discouraged from learning to cook. It is
"women's work."

Also, while I generally agree that a stable, healthy marriage is best for
raising kids, one of the problems here is that people are living longer and
having fewer children. Even if a woman marries well, after her kids are grown,
there are very real problems for her and other people to expect her to remain
confined to certain caretaking roles.

The fact that people are living longer and child mortality rates are down
inherently creates social pressure to handle things differently than in the
past. I think you only escape this by erasing a great deal of progress that
led to both of these positive outcomes.

~~~
microcolonel
> _You are cherry picking. In social settings where gender roles are pretty
> strictly enforced, men are actively discouraged from learning to cook. It is
> "women's work."_

Fair enough, I would not advocate for _nifty fifties_ or _rural Iraq_ style
forcible/near-forcible gender roles. The extent to which force is involved is
the extent to which they are wrong.

If you take force out of the equation, you get a useful mental model; put
force in, and you get a repressive system.

> _The fact that people are living longer and child mortality rates are down
> inherently creates social pressure to handle things differently than in the
> past._

This is definitely true, but it seems this question is already answered for
us: people continue to want to have kids at nearly the same rate (after the
initial decline), but typically trend toward or below the replacement rate in
terms of the typical number of children per household.

~~~
Mz
That does not answer the question of what women will do with their lives.
Women who have been socialized their entire life to pick up after others and
cook for them and take care of them don't readily have a path forward for how
to spend their time constructively. The logical outcome is that many women
wind up with paid jobs that mimic the wife and mom role. But paid jobs that
involve, for example, cleaning up after others tend to be shit jobs that no
one actually aspires to. People do not typically dream of being the maid.

I was a homemaker and full time mom. I also was an excellent student. I have
found it quite challenging to develop a serious career. I feel strongly that
gender expectations are a big factor in that problem.

So, it is a thing I think about a lot.

I agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with having a useful mental
model for "this is how to act." But I think we face substantial challenges in
teasing out how to separate masculine and feminine expression from the raft
load of problems that cause the trend known as _the feminization of poverty._

~~~
microcolonel
> _I agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with having a useful mental
> model for "this is how to act." But I think we face substantial challenges
> in teasing out how to separate masculine and feminine expression from the
> raft load of problems that cause the trend known as the feminization of
> poverty._

Yeah, among the elderly, marital status is the largest determining factor in
poverty rates; and among the unmarried elderly, sex is the next major factor
[0]. That said, I don't see a trend in the data I've seen on this, but that
could just be for lack of samples.

I will say that this definitely touches on your earlier comment (which I'll
quote)

> _Even if a woman marries well, after her kids are grown, there are very real
> problems for her and other people to expect her to remain confined to
> certain caretaking roles._

This is basically the conclusion of a major, life-altering decision.

Option a) Optimize for "feminine" roles, be able to have and raise kids in an
optimal manner, and attach yourself to your husband's naturally greater
earning role so that you can maintain your lifestyle into old age.

Option b) Optimize for general/economic roles, choose a difficult and time
consuming career which nobody else will appreciate you for, because you may
not have a family in your 30s to care about how much you earn. Live out the
rest of your days on your own dollar (albeit with nobody around who wants you
to cook for them or support them emotionally, which even to me as a [fairly
young] man who cooks for others seems kinda lonely). Statistically speaking,
this route goes poorly for both sexes, but especially poorly for women (that
"never married" category on the SSA fact sheet).

At a glance, it seems unfair that these are the two main choices for women,
but I don't see how you could expect much different.

The difference can be largely attributed to the unique maternal relationship,
and the fact that it is a career in itself. The uniquely paternal part of
child rearing is more of a job than a career, and part of the gig is to have
other work anyhow.

It seems like a very difficult decision, and I sympathize with it. Young and
foolish as I am, I think that if I had a straight daughter, she has a better
chance of achieving a likely life goal (having [a] kid[s]) and remaining above
the poverty line if she is at least _well equipped_ for the "feminine" role. I
would have no trouble encouraging her to work on that while also getting a
proper professional education.

[0]: [https://www.ssa.gov/retirementpolicy/fact-sheets/marital-
sta...](https://www.ssa.gov/retirementpolicy/fact-sheets/marital-status-
poverty.html)

~~~
Mz
I wrote a really long reply and I liked it enough that I decided it belonged
on my blog instead. You can see it here:

[http://michelerebooted.blogspot.com/2017/09/unmarried-
bitche...](http://michelerebooted.blogspot.com/2017/09/unmarried-bitches-don-
deserve-to-eat.html)

Thank you for engaging me in good faith. A meaty debate or discussion with
someone who is not being an asshole about it is always a good thing and,
sadly, not very common.

~~~
microcolonel
Just to be clear, I do not agree with the title as a concept.

I would like it if you avoid associating me with that statement. I
deliberately avoid speaking on what people "deserve" or "don't deserve". I
make an effort to avoid ascribing moral categories like "bitches" based on
people's personal lifestyle preferences.

I'm glad to have had a conversation in good faith on this matter, but
associating me with the disgusting statement "unmarried bitches don't deserve
to eat" is a manifest breach of good faith.

~~~
Mz
There was no intent to associate you with anything. Your statement here will
have to be sufficient for clearing up any concerns about that matter. I am not
going to change the title of the post.

I was homeless for nearly six years. I got off the street earlier this month.
I was quite open on the internet about my struggles in trying to figure out
how to come up with enough earned income to eat. It garnered me damn little
sympathy or support and there were an awful lot of people who were quite ugly
to me and accused me of things like trying to panhandle the internet.

If the title makes people uncomfortable, well, that is the intention. Maybe
you should stop and reconsider your view that gender roles are no problem if
you feel so deeply offended by having it put baldly to you that a position
that it is fine for women to be groomed to be a wife (from birth) is one that
actively makes it difficult for most women to meet their basic needs at some
point in their life.

Adieu.

------
anonalex
Not sure why nobody want to admit that these children are male at birth. They
have a Y chromosome. One out of all of the many biological triggers due to a Y
chromosome happens to not trigger until puberty time. Scientifically, what
about this makes the children female beforehand? Did they possess developing
female genitalia?

------
lithander
Is the penis functional? Can they father kids?

~~~
sigio
Assuming they can... otherwise this mutation would have died out quickly
enough ?

~~~
bdowling
Assuming it's not caused by environmental factors (e.g., pollutants, toxins).

~~~
thechao
The article describes the location as a small, isolated, village. Pollutants &
toxins aren't necessary, just good old genetics.

------
em3rgent0rdr
"disorder"? Sounds like an evolutionary advantage. There isn't any use for a
penis before puberty. Just is something that can get infected or damaged as a
child. Plus smaller prostrate as adult means less chance of prostrate cancer
and maybe some other diseases.

~~~
eggoa
Well, they're sterile too. That's certainly an evolutionary disadvantage.

~~~
cthalupa
Seems like sterility isn't guaranteed.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5α-Reductase_deficiency#Fertil...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5α-Reductase_deficiency#Fertility)

------
mfoy_
Huh... I wonder if there could be some sort of intervention therapy that could
keep them a girl, in that case, or if it's really set in stone that they will
transform.

If so, there could actually be a sort of "third sex" on the horizon. It's been
explored quite a bit in sci-fi tropes, but amazing that it's actually (kind
of) real!

Imagine if you literally got to choose your sex, with no preset arrangement...
you were just a "third gender" type, then elect to go through either male
hormone or female hormone therapy depending on your druthers.

~~~
sandworm101
But it looks like they really aren't girls. This seems to be the delayed
development of biological structures in a classic xy male. In an animal
population this might be an advantage, hiding potential future rivals from
older dominate males. We dont call girls a third sex simply because thier
breasts dont develop until puberty. We call that normal. But perhaps all
children are the "third sex" until they show all the classic structures.

~~~
mfoy_
Well, the idea is that boys and girls are actually anatomically identical in
the womb and then various hormones / enzymes / whatever make the various base
structures develop into what we'd recognize as either male or female sex
organs.

So imagine if there was a simple way to delay that process until adolescence,
when children could choose for themselves whether they wanted male or female
anatomies.

~~~
mnw21cam
Maybe they could choose anatomies. But they can't choose the part they play in
reproduction later. If they choose an anatomy discordant with their genetic
gender, it can make reproduction tricky.

~~~
mfoy_
Assuming you could get a pair of working ovaries with male chromosomes... what
would happen? I really don't know enough about biology or genetics...

Or is the issue that with male chromosomes it's "tricky" to get working
ovaries?

But what if it's not the typical transgender surgery, but actually having the
gonads and tubercle turn into ovaries and clitoris instead of testicles and
penis?

~~~
seszett
> _Assuming you could get a pair of working ovaries with male chromosomes...
> what would happen?_

I imagine it would produce about half X-ovums and half Y-ovums. X-ovums should
be normal, Y-ovums might not be viable at all.

If they were, Y-spermatozoons could probably not fertilise them, or in any
case it would fail rather fast without developing into a viable embryo.
X-spermatozoons could fertilise them to produce male embryos.

Producing working ovaries with male chromosomes is the most unlikely step, but
otherwise it seems like it should work provided the biological machinery is
there to support pregnancy.

~~~
mnw21cam
I strongly suspect that Y-ovums would not be viable at all. There's a lot on
the X chromosome that is pretty vital. How Y-spermatozoons get away with it
I'm not quite sure.

------
h4pless
So, not to be a troll, but can anyone actually vouch for the legitimacy of
this? I don't really doubt it's legitimacy, and it's nice to think that gender
is not just a psychological spectrum but a biological one too, but this
article is completely devoid of sources.

I was a tortoise until age 7. Being a reptile is a bummer, and my tutle penis
didn't develop until age 45. Most people born in CA are like this... Just
sayin'.

------
imron
From 2016 (according to the url), or 2015 (according to the article).

------
rubyfan
Mind blown, this is quite amazing.

