It is "A Proposed Biological Interpretation of the Virgin Birth" by Edward L.
Kessel, _Journal of the ASA_ [later _Perspectives_] 35, September 1983, pp.129-136.
The basic argument is that parthenogenesis might happen in homo sapiens, & that this,
combined with translocation of H-Y factor to an X chromosome might have resulted in a
fetus genotypically female but phenotypically male.
I have no expertise at all concerning the biology of the argument. I do think
it is very interesting theologically for at least 2 reasons:
1) It suggests a way in which the miraculous virginal conception of Jesus
might have been due to a very rare natural process rather than a "violation"
of such processes.
2) It suggests a vivid way of thinking about the idea of post-Chalcedonian
christology that the Logos assumed human nature _in general_ (anhypostasis)
which is "en-personed" (enhypostasized) in the person of the Logos. I.e.,
everything essential to male _and female_ humanity is assumed in the
Incarnation - which is crucial if all are to be saved through the Incarnation.
A point of terminology: One should really refer in this connection to virginal
_conception_ rather than "virgin birth". The latter - i.e., belief that Mary gave birth
to Jesus without losing her virginity - is a belief held by many Christians but goes
beyond the idea that she conceived as a virgin.
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/