Home » Tuck Talk » Future Tuck » Valerie's children
Valerie's children [message #2419] Thu, 23 September 2004 18:30 Go to next message
Brooke  is currently offline Brooke
Messages: 695
Registered: August 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Senior Member
Okay, ever since we found out that Val has a functioning ovary and no testes, I've realized that she *could* have kids. She'd have to use a host mother, but so what? So do "real" women sometimes.

She wouldn't like the (minor) surgery involved, but given that Tuck was so disappointed when he realized that he couldn't be a father, this might be a way to redirect that desire.

So, just assume for the moment that Val does find out that it's possible. Say by confessing to Shiela that not being able to have kids really messed up his plans for his life. Then the next week Shiela shows him references that prove that *Val* could be the biological mother of children, even if she can't get pregnant.

So, Val avoids doing anything that'd prevent this from happening (no testosterone injections!) and eventually find someone she wants to have kids with.

So, who is the father? And, for that matter, who is the host mother?

When I first thought of this, I had a sudden image of Debbie carrying a Val/Travis kid *and* a Tuck/Debbie kid.

Of course, I don't think state of the art even now is up to taking two eggs and creating one viable egg out of them And if it was, the child would be female.

But it is an interesting image. Especially if Val and Travis patch things up *and* Tuck & Debbie do as well. Smile

Re: Valerie's children [message #2420] Thu, 23 September 2004 20:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eric  is currently offline Eric
Messages: 641
Registered: January 2003
Location: San Francisco
Senior Member
Brooke wrote on Thu, 23 September 2004 15:30

[Val] wouldn't like the (minor) surgery involved, but given that Tuck was so disappointed when he realized that he couldn't be a father, this might be a way to redirect that desire.


One word of caution (or something) here. In Rachel's Tuck Squared Tuck expressed disappointment that he couldn't be a father, though only as something of a tangent to the discussion in Mike's treehouse about discontinuing hormone injections.

But I haven't found anything in Ellen's basic Tuck narrative that demonstrates it, or anything other than the August 27 dream sequence that even implies it. A word search on "children" didn't find anything relevant, and a look through the April 13 conversation at Susan's college and the whole series of developments that began September 25 (the medical findings, the discussions with the group and with Sheila the shrink, and Tuck's internal dialogue while changing for babysitting the next Monday) didn't produce anything.

Please correct me if there's something I've missed.

In the absence of documented evidence, I'd have no trouble believing that he'd be disappointed that he couldn't be a father to a biological child, though I'm not sure that he'd consider it enough of a genetic issue to rule out simple adoption. But I don't think that at this point it's a major concern in his life, or something that would leave him determined to become a biological mother if/when he found out that was possible.

That said, I suppose it may be barely relevant here in response to Brooke's speculations that, in a fanfic that I haven't quite given up on, Mike and Debbie eventually, years after college, enter into a marriage of convenience that allows her to take Tuck's genetically-engineered fetus (created by Mike, who by then owns a biotech company) to term and then raise young Valerie as the one child she ever really wanted.

Eric
Re: Valerie's children [message #2421] Thu, 23 September 2004 20:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
rachel.greenham  is currently offline rachel.greenham
Messages: 290
Registered: November 2002
Location: Bristol, UK
Senior Member
Brooke wrote on Thu, 23 September 2004 23:30

So, who is the father? And, for that matter, who is the host mother?

When I first thought of this, I had a sudden image of Debbie carrying a Val/Travis kid *and* a Tuck/Debbie kid.


Cool Way ahead of you guys. Cool

from Tuck Squared, chapter 8

That was typical Debbie. She'd stop in the middle of giving birth to close a deal.

*Not that she'd have a chance to do that if she stayed with me.* "We'll use a donor," her Debbie had said to that, all businesslike, like it was obvious. She'd already thought it all through of course. "But that's _years_ away, lover."

"Who'd be the father? Anonymous?"

"I was thinking of your brother."

"What Tu-Brian I mean? God, they're getting _me_ calling him that now."

"No, silly. Mike. He's closer to you than genes. Can you think of anyone's child you'd rather have?"




Was written before we'd got Tuck's medical findings, so I was guessing{1}, and deliberately being vague about the identity of the biological mother.

But yeah, ever since we did find out for sure about that ovary I've been surprised at the lack of curiosity from the characters about whether it's reproductively viable. FWIW I'd say the balance of probability is that it isn't, for various hormonal-development reasons. But we'll see. For Tuck's sake I'd like to think it is.

On the other hand, it's easy to forget the time dilation effect we're getting reading it. It's been, what, two weeks in the story since those results? /me checks quickly... Exactly two weeks. So maybe it is too soon for people to have got curious about that, especially with Valerie being busted in the interim. At the moment, of course, they're way too busy.

Smile

{1} My working hypothesis (ie: guess) was "female pseudohermaphrodite or true hermaphrodite, not sure." We've since had an in-story treatise on the social and medical suitability of 'the H word', but the current medical definitions of the above were what I was hedging between.


Rachel
Re: Valerie's children [message #2422] Thu, 23 September 2004 20:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eric  is currently offline Eric
Messages: 641
Registered: January 2003
Location: San Francisco
Senior Member
Missed you by one minute, Rachel. I guess that's where I came up with the fanfic idea. Sorry about that; I really didn't remember that it hadn't been original.

Eric
Re: Valerie's children [message #2423] Thu, 23 September 2004 21:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
OtherEric  is currently offline OtherEric
Messages: 589
Registered: September 2003
Senior Member
Eric wrote on Thu, 23 September 2004 17:34

But I haven't found anything in Ellen's basic Tuck narrative that demonstrates it, or anything other than the August 27 dream sequence that even implies it.

Please correct me if there's something I've missed.

How about this exchange, even if it's not quite as strong a reference as I had remembered:
19:10 12 Sep

"What?" I asked Travis after we got done kissing, because he waslooking at me kind of funny.
"Just..." he said, then shook his head. "You, and Ricky."
"What?"
"You just look so... Motherly?"
"Oh, jeez," I sighed, and hugged him again. When we let go a while later, I finished, "He's a sick kid, and he needs some extra care when that happens. My dad used to do that for me."
"Really?"
"Yeah..."
"Still, though," he argued. "Have you ever thought about kids? I mean, like, having them?"
"I can't," I sighed, sickened suddenly. "Look, don't ask about it,okay? It's... It's not something I want to talk about tonight."
"Okay," he agreed, looking puzzled.
"It's depressing."
"Oh."
Pause.
He hugged me again, tightly, and I ended up crying shortly thereafter. I hated my body.

I recall a few other conversations where it seems to imply strongly that Tuck wants kids badly, as well. I remember a scene where Val is talking to Mrs. Parker about what Val wants to do with her life including a line something like "being a pain in the butt to my kids, just like dad."
I would need to do more research to make sure I've been reading what I think I've been reading. But I definitly have the impression that having kids is EXTREMELY important to Tuck.
Re: Valerie's children [message #2424] Thu, 23 September 2004 21:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Brooke  is currently offline Brooke
Messages: 695
Registered: August 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Senior Member
Ok, Mike as a father works *way* better than Travis, at least until we see if the Val/Travis relationship gets thru the current rough spots.

Though I'd be a bit scared of what a Mike/Val kid might turn out like. Not only bright as hell, but one has to wonder if he or she would share the link that Mike & Val seem to have.

It'd have its good and bad points. Good point: Mike and Val would be able to keep track of the kid better and probably do a better job than most of helping thru the bad spots in all kids life due to the "empathy" they'd have.

Downside would be the kid being a bit *too* in touch with the parents at times.

I'd still like to see a "Tuck"/Debbie kid. Though that'd be even harder than a Val/Debbie kid.

For Val/Debbie, you just need to figure out hhow to add the DNA from one egg to another and then convince it that it has been fertilized.

For "Tuck"/Debbie, you need to figure out how to seperate half the DNA from one of Tu-Val's XY cells and stick that into one of Debbie's eggs.

BTW, the tech for the former would allow Debbie and Lisa to have a kid. Smile

Re: Valerie's children [message #2425] Thu, 23 September 2004 21:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Brooke  is currently offline Brooke
Messages: 695
Registered: August 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Senior Member
I'm no expert, but I figure that viability of eggs isn't any more far fetched than the old speculation about Val having a monthly cycle, even if she can't have a "proper" period.
icon5.gif  Re: Valerie's children [message #2426] Thu, 23 September 2004 23:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jackfrost  is currently offline Jackfrost
Messages: 18
Registered: August 2004
Location: Far Nor Cal
Junior Member
Brooke wrote on Thu, 23 September 2004 18:49

For Val/Debbie, you just need to figure out hhow to add the DNA from one egg to another and then convince it that it has been fertilized.


Well instead of moveing the DNA from one egg to the other just tranfer the DNA from on egg to a sperm cell that has had the DNA removed. Then induce sperm to egg as in other forms of invitro. Dont know if it would work but sounds right.

(The above is just a wild guess on my part. Anybody out there a gentic reseach expert.) Rolling Eyes

[Updated on: Thu, 23 September 2004 23:59]


Graduate of Red Bluff High School. No, really I would not lie about something like that. LMAO when that came up as the name of one of the schools.
Re: Valerie's children [message #2428] Fri, 24 September 2004 00:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Doragoon  is currently offline Doragoon
Messages: 334
Registered: September 2002
Location: Everett, WA
Senior Member

Quote:

Well instead of moveing the DNA from one egg to the other just tranfer the DNA from on egg to a sperm cell that has had the DNA removed.


actualy, they have been able to take the cells that divide into eggs, they can get them to produce sperm too or instead or something. i read about it a while ago, can anyone else confirm?
Re: Valerie's children [message #2429] Fri, 24 September 2004 05:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
rachel.greenham  is currently offline rachel.greenham
Messages: 290
Registered: November 2002
Location: Bristol, UK
Senior Member
Brooke wrote on Fri, 24 September 2004 02:49

Ok, Mike as a father works *way* better than Travis, at least until we see if the Val/Travis relationship gets thru the current rough spots.


Well, that was a Tuck variant who was still with Debbie, and never had more than a few dates with Travis, so he wasn't really in the offing.

My thinking in that situation was that Valerie hadn't even imagined Mike in that role; it's Debbie's idea - of course Valerie and Mike are in sibling headspace as regards the other, so it only works because the gene-mixing is divorced from sex. But there's no genetic reason why they shouldn't.

But I was thinking - especially without a Travis in that pattern - who else would Valerie trust to not only supply genetic material but to stay and be that child's father and not run away from the shape of the family the four of them would make.

But that it was Debbie's idea, not Valerie's. Smile She's not just a uterus to rent you know! And if she wants kids she'll want at least one of her own one day anyway.

'Twas just an idle idea at the time, and still is. Smile

Quote:

Though I'd be a bit scared of what a Mike/Val kid might turn out like. Not only bright as hell, but one has to wonder if he or she would share the link that Mike & Val seem to have.


No, I wouldn't have considered that. Tuck and Mike aren't genetically related at all, besides both being human, so the bond they have doesn't have anything to do with genetics.

Besides which, it's not that overt a bond anyway. Mike didn't even magically know Tuck was in trouble until he found Tuck's things in the trash. Nor did he know about Tuck's growing relationship with Travis - they had a bit of a scene about it at King's Island when he found out, if you recall. So it's there but it's not that invasive.

Quote:

For Val/Debbie, you just need to figure out hhow to add the DNA from one egg to another and then convince it that it has been fertilized.

For "Tuck"/Debbie, you need to figure out how to seperate half the DNA from one of Tu-Val's XY cells and stick that into one of Debbie's eggs.


What XY cells? Tuck's XX/XXY mosaic. But you're talking about serious-shit cloning tech now anyway, and I think with XXY it probably just won't happen. This stuff is hard enough even with everything going for you.

Harvesting eggs from Tuck's ovary is relatively conservative science, and the eggs themselves have to already be viable, which is a big if.

Quote:

BTW, the tech for the former would allow Debbie and Lisa to have a kid. Smile


I believe this application of fertility treatment has already been thought of! Smile But I think it's still science-fiction, although Doragoon may be right, I've a feeling I read somewhere that someone's trying it. There are probably going to be big problems with it though.

Side-note: In the above you seem to be under the misapprehension that "Tuck" and "Val" are different people, and that they correspond to the XXY and XX cells in Tuck's body.


Rachel
Re: Valerie's children [message #2430] Fri, 24 September 2004 05:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
rachel.greenham  is currently offline rachel.greenham
Messages: 290
Registered: November 2002
Location: Bristol, UK
Senior Member
Eric wrote on Fri, 24 September 2004 01:42

Missed you by one minute, Rachel. I guess that's where I came up with the fanfic idea. Sorry about that; I really didn't remember that it hadn't been original.

Eric


We were writing our replies to Brooke's post at the same time, I think.


Rachel
Re: Valerie's children [message #2431] Fri, 24 September 2004 06:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Brooke  is currently offline Brooke
Messages: 695
Registered: August 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Senior Member
rachel.greenham wrote on Fri, 24 September 2004 02:46


Side-note: In the above you seem to be under the misapprehension that "Tuck" and "Val" are different people, and that they correspond to the XXY and XX cells in Tuck's body.



No, it was just handy shorthand. Discussing anything about the person whose legal name is Eugene Wallace Tucker tends to break a lot of standard English usages.

So dependiung on context or the emphasis on which "facet" of the person I'm concerned with the name and pronouns tend to shift around.

Y'know, it's actually *easier* dealing with a couple of friends who are "multiples". Smile

Re: Valerie's children [message #2433] Fri, 24 September 2004 07:56 Go to previous messageGo to next message
rachel.greenham  is currently offline rachel.greenham
Messages: 290
Registered: November 2002
Location: Bristol, UK
Senior Member
Brooke wrote on Fri, 24 September 2004 11:11

Y'know, it's actually *easier* dealing with a couple of friends who are "multiples". Smile


Well, yes, there's a reasonably established protocol where you know what the body-name, the system-name and the various individuals' names to whom you've been introduced are and when you should use them.

Whereas Eugene/Tuck/Valerie are just names. It so happens that Tuck's ended up with distinct names for the various social contexts and associated behaviour patterns he has - as everyone has to some extent. I don't think there's anyone else in there, unless you count Mike as a Soulbond. Wink


Rachel
Re: Valerie's children [message #2434] Fri, 24 September 2004 08:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Brooke  is currently offline Brooke
Messages: 695
Registered: August 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Senior Member
rachel.greenham wrote on Fri, 24 September 2004 04:56

Brooke wrote on Fri, 24 September 2004 11:11

Y'know, it's actually *easier* dealing with a couple of friends who are "multiples". Smile


Well, yes, there's a reasonably established protocol where you know what the body-name, the system-name and the various individuals' names to whom you've been introduced are and when you should use them.

Whereas Eugene/Tuck/Valerie are just names. It so happens that Tuck's ended up with distinct names for the various social contexts and associated behaviour patterns he has - as everyone has to some extent. I don't think there's anyone else in there, unless you count Mike as a Soulbond. Wink



Believe me, I'm way too familiar with the multiple names for multiple contexts bit.

Let's see. I've got my given name, my SCA name (based on the name I answered to in foster home when one of the kids of the foster parents already hasd my given name), the handle I used for decades online (and currently have more friends who are apt to call me by it than my given name or my chosen name) and the name I chose which is what I happen to be using here.

Three of those four names are gender specific, but not all the same gender. The old "handle" isn't gender specific.

And I keep thinking there's a fifth name I've forgotten. <sigh>
Re: Valerie's children [message #2447] Sat, 25 September 2004 16:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Cate
Messages: 78
Registered: September 2002
Member
This thread has several messages that state that Tuck has an ovary. However, the entry that Ellen wrote only implied that Tuck had an ovary.

"They can't be sure without a biopsy or an abdominal inspection..." Mom took another breath. "But it looks like an ovary, and maybe part of a fallopian tube."

Males with Persistent Mullerian Duct Remnant Syndrome frequently have partial fallopian tubes that are tied to cryptorchid testicles. The undiffentiated mass on the other side might really be a utricular cyst (another possible result of PMDS). Both would give the same MRI or Ultra-sound images as were describe in episode 96.

So we really are still at "maybe Tuck can have children, or maybe not". We'll just have to wait for Ellen to reveal all. <eg>
Re: Valerie's children [message #2449] Sat, 25 September 2004 16:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Brooke  is currently offline Brooke
Messages: 695
Registered: August 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Senior Member
Cate wrote on Sat, 25 September 2004 13:32

This thread has several messages that state that Tuck has an ovary. However, the entry that Ellen wrote only implied that Tuck had an ovary.

"They can't be sure without a biopsy or an abdominal inspection..." Mom took another breath. "But it looks like an ovary, and maybe part of a fallopian tube."

Males with Persistent Mullerian Duct Remnant Syndrome frequently have partial fallopian tubes that are tied to cryptorchid testicles. The undiffentiated mass on the other side might really be a utricular cyst (another possible result of PMDS). Both would give the same MRI or Ultra-sound images as were describe in episode 96.

So we really are still at "maybe Tuck can have children, or maybe not". We'll just have to wait for Ellen to reveal all. <eg>


Given that Tuck is getting substantial amounts of female hormones from *somewhere* to drive his developing a female body, my money is on it actually being an ovary.

And ok, I'll admit it, I really *want* it to be one. Because if it is, then there's at least a chance of having natural kids. It'd be just one more munkind cut of fate if it wasn't.

Tuck deserves *some* sort of break...
Re: Valerie's children [message #2451] Sat, 25 September 2004 17:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Cate
Messages: 78
Registered: September 2002
Member
Actually, if Tuck was suffering from PAIS [as was suggested by another writer] the small amounts of estrogen normally produced by the adrenal glands would be enough to start feminizing Tuck. An ovary wouldn't be necessary.
Re: Valerie's children [message #2453] Sat, 25 September 2004 18:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Brooke  is currently offline Brooke
Messages: 695
Registered: August 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Senior Member
Cate wrote on Sat, 25 September 2004 14:45

Actually, if Tuck was suffering from PAIS [as was suggested by another writer] the small amounts of estrogen normally produced by the adrenal glands would be enough to start feminizing Tuck. An ovary wouldn't be necessary.


Wouldn't that be moving rather more slowly?
Re: Valerie's children [message #2455] Sun, 26 September 2004 00:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Doragoon  is currently offline Doragoon
Messages: 334
Registered: September 2002
Location: Everett, WA
Senior Member

Quote:

Wouldn't that be moving rather more slowly?


tuck is 16, most girls have been growing breasts for years now, and tuck is just now noticable... i would say tuck IS developing slowly.

plus differant people respond to differant amounts of hormones differantly...

on the other hand, tuck is really thin, and that could have delayed puberty...
Re: Valerie's children [message #2470] Tue, 28 September 2004 16:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Vicki  is currently offline Vicki
Messages: 159
Registered: October 2002
Location: North Texas
Senior Member

Doragoon wrote on Sat, 25 September 2004 23:19

Quote:

Wouldn't that be moving rather more slowly?


tuck is 16, most girls have been growing breasts for years now, and tuck is just now noticable... i would say tuck IS developing slowly.

plus differant people respond to differant amounts of hormones differantly...

on the other hand, tuck is really thin, and that could have delayed puberty...


Delayed puberty happens. As Valarie's body is not functioning like a normal females would. But until the puberty started she for the most part probably was physically and hormonally like a prepubesent female. With just one ovary finally starting to produce enough estrogens to make changes. But all humans both male and female produce testerone and estrogen naturally. Males of course have testerone dominant and females estrogen. Another possibility would be a tumor producing estrogen but that has yet to be seen. If Valarie is AIS that would also slow the effect of hormones on her body. There is just no way to be sure what is happening yet, but time will tell as Ellen discloses exactly (or at least hints at) what is going on. The part in the latest chapter where Sarah reads the medical chart and says "wait, this can't be right" leaves one to wonder exactly what is she referring to.


Doubt is a thief that often makes us fear to tread where we might have won --Shakespeare" --

-Vicki
Re: Valerie's children [message #2471] Tue, 28 September 2004 17:25 Go to previous message
Brooke  is currently offline Brooke
Messages: 695
Registered: August 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Senior Member
Vicki wrote on Tue, 28 September 2004 13:19

Delayed puberty happens. As Valarie's body is not functioning like a normal females would. But until the puberty started she for the most part probably was physically and hormonally like a prepubesent female. With just one ovary finally starting to produce enough estrogens to make changes. But all humans both male and female produce testerone and estrogen naturally. Males of course have testerone dominant and females estrogen. Another possibility would be a tumor producing estrogen but that has yet to be seen. If Valarie is AIS that would also slow the effect of hormones on her body. There is just no way to be sure what is happening yet, but time will tell as Ellen discloses exactly (or at least hints at) what is going on. The part in the latest chapter where Sarah reads the medical chart and says "wait, this can't be right" leaves one to wonder exactly what is she referring to.



Agree that we don't know what's really going on with Tuck's body.

But I do have to point out that we do not know *who* was looking at that chart. The looking at the chart is in a *seperate* section of text. It's a "standalone" scene. Yes, Sarah is the person speaking in the next scene, but that doesn't allow us to draw any conclusions.

Heck, how would Sarah know what wasn't right?

BTW, one thing that may or not not have been noted when they did the rape exam is that Val has been having anal sex.

I'm not sure to what extent they can spot that sort of thing, but it can be spotted in *some* cases, if you are looking hard.

Also, there may be evidence of that first time (she got torn up a fair bit so there may be minor scarring that *can't* be considered "normal" for a "virgin" orifice)

If *that's* on the chart, especially if all they saw was "evidence of old anal trauma, possibly from forced penetration" somebody is apt to go (more) ballistic if Tuck or Shiela doesn't get a chance to explain to them.

Previous Topic:Gifted & Talented
Next Topic:What Next?
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sat Jun 23 00:52:45 EDT 2018

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02305 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 2.7.7.
Copyright ©2001-2007 FUD Forum Bulletin Board Software