I'm pretty sure the person in question didn't change anything "down there", so a vaginal birth isn't out of the question. And they DID have a double masectomy, so there is no tissue to produce milk, I don't think.

If he didn't change anything "down there" then how can he legally be a man and legally married to a[nother] biological woman? I'm totally un-knowledgeable in this area.

What the F? Did she mistakenly open the freekin' Lost Ark?

I bet there are 6 or 7 hillside homes stuck under those puppies...

The headline should have been "Transgender Person Pregnant."

It's hard to say "That person is a man" when that person actually has a uterus. This isn't a matter of being insensitive, it's a matter of fact. I'd say "That person identifies as a man".

However, it would seem to me that if you want to remain a viable mother then you want to be a woman. The idea that you can be both simultaneously just sounds like they don't really identify as anything and they want to play both sides. If that's the case, they shouldn't claim they identify as a man, they should claim that they identify as both, which is fine by me, really. It's none of my business whether he/she wants to be masculine, feminine, both, or asexual.

Have you guys seen this yet? (video link)

Holy crap... a town of 1951 people, and they're removing over *400* children from this polygamy compound!

Here's the text story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23993440/ (talks more about the polygamy arrests than what a big deal it is to remove a quarter of the population of a town and take them into state custody - which the video link does)

Can anybody point to more information about the initial call to authorities? So far I've not seen much detail but it sounds like they don't know who the girl is.

While I don't really approve of this group (I'm all for polygamy, just not polygamy involving children as the marrying parties) but putting hundreds of children and detaining scores of adults based on an anonymous phone call seems a bit of a stretch. So I'm hoping I just haven't seen that information.

Because it involves sexual abuse of a minor, they can't release the name of the girl. The impression I get though is that they don't know (or haven't revealed) if they've found her.

The women who left did so of their own accord (to whatever extent "voluntarily" is, when authorities are involved).

The impression I get is that some of the underage "kids" removed have kids of their own, also removed. So I'd say there is sufficient evidence there.

What is the law in California on defining men and women for marriage? Military service? Affirmative action? Is it based on chromosomes? Parts?