Broomstick
See, the problem with this line of reasoning is that someone who actually is an “XY female” usually looks more feminine than usual, not less.
Ah, you beat me to it. Yes, the reasoning is entirely mistaken: it can’t be stressed enough that the androgenous appearance that presumably inspired the story is actually counter-evidence, since it’s not a characteristic of the claimed disorder. If she were an XY with testicular feminization, no-one would know.
As a complement to this, the Chicago Tribune published an article illustrating how many to most fashion magazine pictures are digitally manipulated to greatly enhance them. They broke down the process with a recent magazine cover (Madonna in a swimming pool, don’t remember which magazine), and the difference between the two photos was striking. The changes included whitening her eyeballs and teeth, altering her hair color, digitally removing a forearm that was sticking out of the water (making it look like her arms were both down in the water), smoothing her skin, and so on.
And of course we know about the magic of makeup artists, etc., for films, photo shoots, and other public appearances. Jamie Lee Curtis may not be a glamour goddess in real life, but that’s true for a lot of entertainers.
Oh sure, just because you’re a mod, you don’t have to preview. 
There are also at least five previous threads on the subject, as identified by Northern Piper in still another thread that was lost in the Diaspora and now exists only in Boardreader cache:
If anybody really cares, just search the titles. Or have a little dignity and let this slanderous rumor die the death it deserves.
So as near as I, a neutral observer, can tell, the evidence of Ms. Curtis being hermaphroditic are as follows:
She’s female.
As to Mrs. Curtis’s body, it’s true many photos are altered, but anyone who watched her movies from “Trading Places” to “True Lies” knows that at least for a good 15 years she had an absolutely jaw-dropping, ultra-hot bod.
<hijack>
Maybe I’m just too cynical, but I look at JLC’s ‘brave’ decision to publich an un-retouched photo of her 43-year-old body differently.
The standard take on this is that it was meant to say to women: “See, I’m not really so hot after all, so just buck up and don’t be depressed because you always compare yourself to me and come up short.”
Well, I say this: the message was really “Hey girls and women, you need to buy all these beauty products to plaster on your bods so you can transform yourself from blah to babe.”
The JLC pics were, after all, published in a fashion mag that is 50% or more cosmetic ads and the like …
</hijack>
Well, you can see JLC’s increasing frumpiness in the movie Drowning Mona (2000).
Or at least I saw it. I might be alone in that. It wasn’t a very popular movie.
She was, nevertheless, on my “women to nail” list from 1984 to 1997, and may regain her position when True Lies II comes out in 2004.
But don’t XY females have facial hair, like a man?
I wish Jamie Lee would put an end to all of these accusations.
So simple it would be.
With so many making rumours and stating that Jamie has xy chomosones, it would be a very simple matter to end them all!!! once and for good!!! and get many millions of dollars besides, for her to just sue them all in court for slander and for hurting her image.
So many actors and actresses have sued so many others for so much less.
It would be a quick and an open and shut case for her to win by simply having her doctor provide evidence that she indeed has xx chromosones.
But the real question here is: As hot as she is, would you still have sex with her if you knew she was once a man?
Suzann!
Heh heh, now that you’ve come back, mind either providing a cite or a reason why you won’t back up your assertions?
Actually, it would be quite the opposite of a quick open-and-shut case. As a public figure, to win a libel or slander case, she would have to prove that the media outlet acted with New York Times v. Sullivan malice. In that case and its progeny, the Supreme Court ruled that for a public figur to win defamation damages against a media outlet, the public figure must prove that the outlet published information that it knew to be false or with a reckless disregard as to whether or not it was false.
It would be damn near impossible to prove that the repetition of long-standing rumors about JLC was defamatory under New York Times v. Sullivan.
Besides, why is it her responsibility to spend the time, money and energy to disprove the rumors.
Here is the online portion of the More Magazine article in which Jamie Lee Curtis posed both glammed up and in her natural state.
Spiff – I read the original article at the time, and discussed it with numerous people both online and IRL, and almost all of the women cheered Jamie on. We were empowered and relieved to find evidence that the Hollywood beauty hype is all a big scam. While it’s true that women’s magazines put too much emphasis on beauty products, this particular article was saying that it’s O.K. to be who you are and not try to live up to some faked celebrity image. I feel the same way knowing that the picture of Julia Roberts on the Pretty Woman poster is really a body double.
Jillicious and **Susanann ** – Why do you care so much about Jamie’s chromosomes? Unless you want to bear her children, it’s really none of your business.
Just not her style, is it?
I’m not a lawyer here, so maybe you can help me out. Would you also be included in the suit, since you plainly not only spread these rumours (with notable “juicy” details, I might add) with no proof given in any form, and categorically refused to provide any sources outside of your personal opinion and unreferenced anecdote, all on a public message board?
Susanann, in this thread says she believes in the possible existence of Bigfoot. I wonder if it could be that Jamie Lee Curtis IS Bigfoot. That would explain a lot of things.
No, I am not interested in bearing her children and in all honesty, I really don’t care what her gender status is. The rumors I have heard don’t effect my opinion of her as an actress or a public figure one way or the other.
Actually, my question was raised in an attempt to prove to my boyfriend that unsubstantiated rumors are almost always false. I was hoping to find some definitive “proof” that the rumors about JLC were unfounded so that maybe I could convince him to finally stop accepting as truth the endless gossip spread by his network of infantile college buddies.
That being said, it is clear that I am not going to get the definitive answer I was looking for on this issue, so I’ll most likely have to wait for the next opportunity to prove my point. And in all likelihood, even if I am able to qualitatively disprove something he has learned from the “fellas”, it will undoubtedly have very little impact on his appetite for gossip.
I also must add that I was impressed by the courage Jamie Lee Curtiss has shown in revealing her real body to the public. If more icons, especially females, were to do the same I believe our country would have a much lower incidence of eating disorders and other conditions caused by poor body image.
I wish people would mind their own fucking business.
Jillicious – Thanks for your response. Unfortunately, you’re correct when you say that this particular issue is not a very good one for proving your point about unsubstantiated rumors.
If you haven’t already been there, the best place to go for some serious debunking, is Snopes, the Urban Legends Reference Pages. There you will find authoritative proof, with cites, that hundreds of unsubstantiated rumors are false. I’m sure you could find several that your boyfriend and his buddies have been spreading around.
Good luck in the fight against ignorance!
The point to bear in mind with this type of rumors is that it is up to the person who believes them to supply the proof and not up the the skeptic to prove them wrong.
If I say George Bush is actually a woman, it is up to me to prove it, not up to skeptics to show me I’m wrong. The argument that he has never denied it or disproved it is just silly. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. . . and all that.
Clearly you’ve never had an argument with my boyfriend.