Sports reporter to undergo sex change

I bet you say that to all the guys.

Mr Zee, I have 46xy chromosomes in my blood and bone marrow. That we know. I also have a female pattern pelvis, buccal teeth, and other signs typical of being 47xxy. I honestly have no idea which parts of my body have what chromosomes. I can't afford the tens of thousands of dollars to find out.

It was so much simpler when I was given a diagnosis of partial androgen insensitivity grade 1 back in 1986. But after what happened in May-July 2005, I've had medics seriously speculate on whether I qualified as human or not with those blood test results. And yes, I've been called a Freak by my GP - but we were both laughing at the utter absurdity of the test results at the time, he's a great guy.

Guy/Gal... I've been called worse things. For the first time in my life I have something closely resembling a normal body. A normal Female body. But I don't menstruate - that stopped when I was 12 (told you I was metabolically odd...) . And I'm the biological father of my son, so despite the looks, the genitalia, the natural hormone levels, there's a case for calling me male. That's what it says on my UK birth certificate anyway, and due to a technicality, that can never be changed.

One of the first things that happened in May 2005 was that I became sterile. Shortly thereafter a peer-reviewed diagnosis said that I had severe androgenisation of a non-pregnant woman, and was given hormones on that basis.

My UK passport says I'm female, but my UK birth certificate says I'm male. The Australian Department of Health says I'm female, as does the Australian Tax Office, Department of Immigration, and Electoral commission. The Australian Passport Office says that I'm Transgendered, though they're unable to say whether I'm a male pretending to be female, or a female who pretended to be male. Either way, no passport for Ms Zoe.

I'm trying to live some sort of normal life. If you look at my academic website, you'll seem I'm just another frumpy 30-something female academic (who's actally 49...). I don't wear an "Ask me about my sex change" T-shirt, but neither do I hide my past away as something shameful. I just don't advertise it, any more than I advertise that I'm a Cancer survivor.

My greatest dream is just to be like my G/Fs, my contemporaries, as if the whole 40 years of doing the Boy act was just some horrible nightmare, not real. In that regard, I'm a typical TS, someone to whom humdrum normality, the thing everyone takes for granted, is an impossible dream we can only aspire to.

But while I'm called a "Guy/Gal" it ain't gonna happen is it? No matter what I do, or how hard I try, I'll never be an ordinary woman. I'll just have to be an extraordinary one then!

 

There's also the case of Chris Kahrl.

 

Cool Link.

I'm off for food and sleep.

Will return tomorrow.

 

People who write columns and cover beats for the Los Angeles Times are far from anonymous. People like Mike Penner who write damn well and are conscientous journalists for the Los Angeles Times are far from anonymous.

Unlike, say, a real bastard on a message board who spouts off when all he should be saying is "Hi, I'm zagoshe. I REALLY have my head in my ass. Pay me no mind."

 

Well, yes. I think this is an education for both "sides" of the issue here. It certainly is for me.

 

how have you not once managed to spell her handle right? it's dyssonance.

i applaud both dyssonance and zoeb, as well as christine daniels, for their courage and openness. no matter your personal opinion on transsexualism, it takes guts to come out and tell the world you are different.

sadly, it's not going to get easier until people realize this isn't a choice you're making and it's not just something that's in your head. it's who you are.

 

I am "privy" to Christine's situation and nowhere in the article does it say that she is to undergo a sex change. So, the whole snickering about a "sausagectomy" is premature. She is living her life as a woman and what the future holds is her business but there is no impending surgery. It's nice to see some mostly positive comments about this and especially the comments by sports chick and gingerbread are right on point. Christine would really rather live life without anyone delving into this but, as a sports writer, she knew the story would get out and indeed wanted to have some control over it.

 

If I were the LA Times, I would not have let Mike write the column. It's a too offhand, too jokey and coy, it doesn't really mention his family - they're far more important than his barber - and it doesn't explain much. Maybe this sounds whatever, but cracking jokes over the lifelong battle that tortured you seems, I dunno, insincere to the emotions. I mean, it's kinda a landmark moment. And his wife's not in the piece? Come on. I think what happened here is that the editors let him make his own call on how to come out, greenlighted a poor, thin column that hardly answers many of the questions, and now will be left to answers a lot of questions a takeout could have addressed.

I would have made it a Sunday feature, had another reporter write the story objectively, interviewed the people involved, had the editor and Mike write their own little pieces on the OP/ED page, the whole works. I mean, we all know he's gonna be on The Today Show. We all know the NYT is going to write a take out. The LAT should've just done it right. Maybe they're going to and just haven't yet.

 

I am new at this site but I did want to reply to these comments (this is my second attempt; so I apologize if it posts twice). I am a friend of Christine. Nowhere in her article is there a mention of the intention to undergo a sex change. She is living her life as a woman but there is no imminent surgery. I believe that the last post was correct that one needs to live as a woman for a year before any decision like that is made. It is nice to see so many positive comments and especially the comments from sports chick and gingerbread. They are right on point. Christine would rather live her life anonymously but as a transexual sports writer, it wouldn't be possible. This is her attempt at "controlling" the story. She is not seeking attention. She just wants to move on with her life.

 

Are you "privy" to what Lisa is doing about this??

 

The whole question of mentioning the wife is rather idiotic. Obviously, the wife isn't thrilled with it and would rather it not be her reality. Christine would rather the wife not be mentioned at all and left out of the topic.

 

It's obviously a touchy subject, but don't you have to do the story right if you're going to do it at all?

Edit: Maybe I've missed it -- where did this run in the section?