🚀 go-pugleaf

Melissa@asupernet.com (Melissa Rhiannon Brookstone) writes:

>One interesting point in this is that someone told me that Colorado 
>doesn't have a good working definition of what male and female are anyway. 
>This would be interesting to find out more about. As for the late part of 
>your question, this is not considered cosmetic surgery by any medical 
>authorities on the subject. It was a poor attempt that some insurance 
>companies used to try to weasel out of paying for it at one time, but it 
>hasn't worked very well for them either. Cosmetics are generally 
>considered things visible to the public or on the surface. Whether someone 
>has one set of sex organs or another is certainly more profound than that. 
>I'm now an anatomical woman with breasts and a vagina. So the courts have 
>pretty much ruled that not to be cosmetic. 

But your altered genitalia are "on the surface".  You lack several internal
organs that you need to be *anatomically* female (anatomy does not stop
at the skin), I doubt they made any drastic changes to your pelvis (I'm
talking about the bone, not any filler that can be used to change apparent
shapes) and if you were to enter the Olympics as a woman, you would be
disqualified.  Until science perfects trans-gender cloning ala John Varley,
surgery can only transform a man or a woman into a man or a woman who has
had lots of surgery.  (Clarification: John Varley wrote stories ABOUT
trans-gender cloning and mind-transfer.  I understand Heinlein did too,
but I have read as little late Heinlein as possible.)

Spam blocked address; to send    |  "Evolution is a theory that accounts
me mail, please change "at"      |   for variety, not superiority."
to "@" and "dot" to "."          |                     -- Joan Pontius