NationStates Jolt Archive

In case you're unaware, a hermaphrodite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite) is a person born with deformed genitals, and is neither male, nor female. It's very rare to have a true hermaphrodite. Most hermaphrodites lean towards either male or female, although they don't have XX and XY chromosomes, and their parents often choose a gender, or they decide for themselves later in life. This is all done through gene therapy. If they want to be male, they pump them full of testosterone-producing drugs, and if they want to be female, they pump them full of estrogen-producing drugs. In some cases, their parents make them one gender at birth, but as an adult, they decide that they want to be the opposite gender.

This page explains some stuff about hermaphrodites, as well as why there can be no universal definition of "male" or "female."

http://www.kindredspiritlakeside.homestead.com/Marriage.html

This challenges the idea that marriage is between "a man and a woman." Well, what IS a man and a woman? So, should hermaphrodites be allowed to marry? If so, who?

Why not? I say allow them. Are you a hermaphrodite?

anybody of any sex should be allowed to marry

anyway, in the UK at least, they are pigeon-holed into one sex or the other on their birth certificates et, and as far as i know can marry just like any other person

http://www.isna.org/faq/hermaphrodite

"Hermaphrodite" is seen as a derogatory term, and is being deprecated and replaced by the more neutral "intersex(ed)".

Why not? I say allow them. Are you a hermaphrodite?
WTF kind of question is that?!

No!

WTF kind of question is that?!

No!
An interesting one, I was kidding. I agree, anyone of should be allowed to marry.

other interesting situations can come about wherein a person who has XX chromosomes will be physically male, or a person with XY chromosomes will be physically female. this is because it is not merely the presence of the Y chromosome that makes a human male, it is the correct activation of a particular gene locus and a resulting cascade of hormones during fetal development. if a person with XY chromosomes doesn't have correct activation of this locus or the hormone cascade their body will never switch over to male development. if there is incorrect splicing of chromosomes an individual with XX chromosomes may end up having a copy of the "male" gene locus, which can then trigger the XX individual to develop a male body.

so what do we do about these people? do we define sex by chromosomes even though the body, the brain, the chemistry, and the self-identity of the individual may all say they are the other sex? should a person with XX chromosomes be only permitted to an individual with XY chromosomes, and vice versa? what if an XX male wants to marry an XY male...will we consider that a "gay marriage"?

oh, and another thing...if we're going to let intersexed individuals marry, how can we logically refuse the right to gay marriage?

oh, and another thing...if we're going to let intersexed individuals marry, how can we logically refuse the right to gay marriage?
Good point.

WTF kind of question is that?!

No!

Plutophobia doth protest too much, methinks!

If a Hermaphrodite can go screw themselves, is that masturbation? And if so... is it a sin? I'm so confused...

Plutophobia doth protest too much, methinks!

If a Hermaphrodite can go screw themselves, is that masturbation? And if so... is it a sin? I'm so confused...
that's a theological question i would love an answer to, from the Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin, that is:

if homosexuality is a sin, who can a good, Christian hermaphrodite have sex with? assume that they do NOT want to sin, but they do want to get married and have a life-partner who they get to be physically intimate with.

Any Conservatives, especially Fundies, got an answer? :confused:

Most responses I get are "They have to choose which they are, and stick with that".

It's really just silly.

"So, when we get married, do you want to be the man, or the woman?"

"I don't know... you look better in a dress... but yours is bigger..."

Wow, 23 votes and still 100%.

that's a theological question i would love an answer to, from the Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin, that is:

if homosexuality is a sin, who can a good, Christian hermaphrodite have sex with? assume that they do NOT want to sin, but they do want to get married and have a life-partner who they get to be physically intimate with.

And that is why people have problems with the Church. There are too many loopholes and contradictions. And there really is no way to answer that from a Christian standpoint, because they maintain that there are only two genders; male and female. "Gender-Deformed" people, as they call them, should choose a sex and maintain it.

But that raises another question, what about intersex people who lived in the days before corrective surgery and hormone drugs?

Christians, I am sorry to say, need to acknowledge that there are people that blur the gender boundaries, and not by choice. If they want to be recognised as neither male nor female, but as a completely different gender, then let them. You cannot force someone with a medical condition to have treatments, if you can even consider it a medical condition.

And really, it true that from a genetic standpoint you are not technically male or female unless you have an XY pattern or an XX pattern. But then again Bible thumpers don't believe in genetics...

I can honestly say I have never in my 18 years of life heard, or even THOUGHT of this question ...

What possessed you to think of it?! o_O;;

I can honestly say I have never in my 18 years of life heard, or even THOUGHT of this question ...

What possessed you to think of it?! o_O;;
Satan probably.

intersexed people have been dealt such a difficult hand in life that as far as im concerned they can do anything that might make their life easier.

http://www.isna.org/faq/hermaphrodite

"Hermaphrodite" is seen as a derogatory term, and is being deprecated and replaced by the more neutral "intersex(ed)".

Thank you, Fass.

Thank you for being knowledgable (as usual).

I could do with an entire nation of Fasses, you should definitely pass on your genes.

I can honestly say I have never in my 18 years of life heard, or even THOUGHT of this question ...

What possessed you to think of it?! o_O;;
I was reading through David Duke's website and I suddenly thought, "You know. I wonder what the MORONS who read this shit would think, if I asked them about hermaphrodites?"

Thank you, Fass.

Thank you for being knowledgable (as usual).

I could do with an entire nation of Fasses, you should definitely pass on your genes.

Thank you. If you know of anyone who needs a sperm donor, I'm your guy! ;) :fluffle:

intersexed people have been dealt such a difficult hand in life that as far as im concerned they can do anything that might make their life easier.

And thank you Ashmoria, for employing empathy in your considered response. My mate would probably thank you, too. People have long ago given up trying to understand the two of us. It's a good thing we have and undertand each other, though. As for the rest of the world?

Feh. The rest of the world can do as it pleases already, what's wrong with the rest of the world making one or two small changes to level the playing field for us all?

I was reading through David Duke's website and I suddenly thought, "You know. I wonder what the MORONS who read this shit would think, if I asked them about hermaphrodites?"

Most of them would immediately get erections, which they would then try to force down by thinking of their wives, naked.

I was reading through David Duke's website and I suddenly thought, "You know. I wonder what the MORONS who read this shit would think, if I asked them about hermaphrodites?"

Good way of attempting to insult me. ;)

Oh, and this intersexed thing is nonsense,

Political-correctness is retarded. It's fucking gay. On one hand, you want to give people dignity, but if "little people" will play elves and oompa-loompas on TV, then surely they can deal with being called midgets or dwarves. Besides, words only change society if they don't have the appearance of being nonsense, or so it seems to me. I mean, when you're obsessive over people-first language, it doesn't catch on. It isn't popular.

"Little people" and "intersexed" sound stupid. Besides, you eliminate prejudice by keeping it out in the open.

Ironically, I was thinking about this earlier today as well, and the challenges it presents to strict man-and-woman marriage advocates.

There's a conspiracy afoot!

Good way of attempting to insult me. ;)

Oh, are there more effective ways? Do tell.

I can honestly say I have never in my 18 years of life heard, or even THOUGHT of this question ...

What possessed you to think of it?! o_O;;


The question DOES come up on here occassionally (I've done it myself), it's just that they're such a hard-to-detect minority (many of the people who DO have intersexuality don't know it, and may never know it, and many of those who DO know it hide it like crazy, get it changed, et cetera), that it doesn't come up much.

Really, this is how its going, from what I can see.

Economic Rights.
Intellectual/Religious Rights.
Race/Minority Rights.
Women's Rights.
Gay/Lez/Bi Rights.
...Intersexual rights...?
...Psychological or Lifestyle rights...? (People who are currently dubbed crazy or screwy, but whom are functional, like fetishists, nudists, bipolars like myself, et cetera)

Oh, and this intersexed thing is nonsense,

Political-correctness is retarded. It's fucking gay. On one hand, you want to give people dignity, but if "little people" will play elves and oompa-loompas on TV, then surely they can deal with being called midgets or dwarves. Besides, words only change society if they don't have the appearance of being nonsense, or so it seems to me. I mean, when you're obsessive over people-first language, it doesn't catch on. It isn't popular.

"Little people" and "intersexed" sound stupid. Besides, you eliminate prejudice by keeping it out in the open.

I agree that dodging the technical term is silly.

However: I think intersexed is also supposed to apply to other unusual sexual situations, not just hermaphroditism. I may be wrong, my only experience with herms is people who have a fetish for them and wander around on furry RPGs with every feasable organ they can get off with.

Oh, and this intersexed thing is nonsense,

Political-correctness is retarded. It's fucking gay. On one hand, you want to give people dignity, but if "little people" will play elves and oompa-loompas on TV, then surely they can deal with being called midgets or dwarves. Besides, words only change society if they don't have the appearance of being nonsense, or so it seems to me. I mean, when you're obsessive over people-first language, it doesn't catch on. It isn't popular.

"Little people" and "intersexed" sound stupid. Besides, you eliminate prejudice by keeping it out in the open.

...and what would you know about eliminating prejudice, if I may ask?

Oh, are there more effective ways? Do tell.

Actually no. If I wasn't afraid of people splattering insults at me all over my computer screen, I wouldn't dare write the things I did as my sig. Honestly I've gotten quite tired of people trying to make me cry. It's a pointless effort. :D

"Little people" and "intersexed" sound stupid. Besides, you eliminate prejudice by keeping it out in the open.

Not only is "hermaphrodite" derogatory, it is also incorrect - it is a physiologic impossibility.

It is fallacious stigma, and if intersex people don't want to be referred to as "hermaphrodites", we should not refer to them as such, especially considering the error in the designation. Failing to do that would make you a petty, rude person who just wants to continue using hurtful epithets because of some need to be mean.

And really, it true that from a genetic standpoint you are not technically male or female unless you have an XY pattern or an XX pattern.
from a genetic standpoint, yes, but is that really the standpoint we should be taking? as i explained earlier, there are people who are physically male but have XX chromosomes, and people who are physically female but have XY chromosomes. i personally know one of the latter, and i promise that you would NEVER guess she is anything but a real woman.

I'll go with whatever the scientific terms are, myself.

It is true that there's no real natural human hermaphrodites (I think it was that, sometimes, they can produce sperm, but they can never get pregnant... but then... you could have a female with a pronounced clitoris... so... messy messy messy).

As for the 'little people', they chose the stupidest damned 'better term'.

They're people with whatever the hell genetic disorder it is. They're, gasp, SHORT.

Ooga booga.

does intersexed include transsexual as well? i never really know

Honestly I've gotten quite tired of people trying to make me cry. It's a pointless effort. :D

And, just as honestly, I've gotten quite tired of people who actually make me cry. Which is why I've had to become a lot tougher than I used to be.

I just read your sig. Why don't you spend more of your time impregnating some Neo-nazi brood sow, in order to guarantee the continuance of Homo Sapiens Trailerparkiens? Wait, of course - you're far too involved making mouth-noises online to catch the eye of some Teutonic twat.

Now that I think of it - spend more of your time here, squabbling - it'll reduce the chances of you multiplying.

from a genetic standpoint, yes, but is that really the standpoint we should be taking? as i explained earlier, there are people who are physically male but have XX chromosomes, and people who are physically female but have XY chromosomes. i personally know one of the latter, and i promise that you would NEVER guess she is anything but a real woman.

Especially considering that they, unlike most ACTUAL women, tend to look like supermodel elf girls (barely any body hair, but luxurious head hair, nice perky breasts, tall, no acne, et cetera).

I will always cherish the knowledge that Cindy Crawford looks like a guy.

Especially considering that they, unlike most ACTUAL women, tend to look like supermodel elf girls (barely any body hair, but luxurious head hair, nice perky breasts, tall, no acne, et cetera).

I will always cherish the knowledge that Cindy Crawford looks like a guy.
um, i don't know what you mean by "actual" women. i'm not talking about individuals who artificially alter their gender, i am talking about individuals who naturally express a phenotype different their genotype...they don't look any different than "regular" men and women, as far as i know.

though i agree about Cindy Crawford.

does intersexed include transsexual as well? i never really know

No, it doesn't. Transsexuals (the better term is transgendered, but transsexual is still viable) are usually people who have perfectly normal genitalia for their physical sex, but who are of a different "psychological" sex. "Men trapped in womens' bodies" or vice versa.

Oh, and this intersexed thing is nonsense,
.
.
.
"Little people" and "intersexed" sound stupid. Besides, you eliminate prejudice by keeping it out in the open.

There's nothing wrong with intersexed, it's much more accurate than hermaphrodite. Hermaphrodites can reproduce as either male or female, that's not the case with humans.

We're somewhere between male and female. Externally I looked male growing up (though there were some issues when I was born), internally it was different. So when I hit puberty and started feminzing, my parents freaked out, and the doctor "fixed" the problem with male hormones.

No one asked me.

As for marriage, I go by the laws based on the way I live. I'm now a woman, and would not expect to be able to marry another woman outside of Massachusetts.

No, it doesn't. Transsexuals (the better term is transgendered, but transsexual is still viable) are usually people who have perfectly normal genitalia for their physical sex, but who are of a different "psychological" sex. "Men trapped in womens' bodies" or vice versa.
oh, i know. i am one

just wasnt sure what all intersexed incorporated

No, it doesn't. Transsexuals (the better term is transgendered, but transsexual is still viable) are usually people who have perfectly normal genitalia for their physical sex, but who are of a different "psychological" sex. "Men trapped in womens' bodies" or vice versa.
indeed. an intersexed individual is somebody who was born with ambiguous genitalia; their gender could not be determined just by checking "down there." a transexual is a person who was born with one determined sex, but who feels that sex does not match up to their internal Self and so seeks to change the outside to match the inside.

indeed. an intersexed individual is somebody who was born with ambiguous genitalia; their gender could not be determined just by checking "down there." a transexual is a person who was born with one determined sex, but who feels that sex does not match up to their internal Self and so seeks to change the outside to match the inside.

Actually there are people who are considered intersexed that aren't ambiguous at birth. Many of them will never know that they have anything different about them (usually it's chromosomal). XY women usually don't discover it until after they fail to get their periods.

An interesting one, I was kidding. I agree, anyone of should be allowed to marry.
absolutely

um, i don't know what you mean by "actual" women. i'm not talking about individuals who artificially alter their gender, i am talking about individuals who naturally express a phenotype different their genotype...they don't look any different than "regular" men and women, as far as i know.

though i agree about Cindy Crawford.

Actual women in that they're able to pop a baby out from between their legs. (Theoretically, even one's sex, like one's sexuality, is always on a sliding scale, but there's that critical point of breedin ability that makes things muddier) I was under the impression that some 'women', somewhat like female hyenas, can end up with more masculine-looking parts, but still otherwise be fully 'female' as far as anything else is concerned.

And yeah, at least in regards to the XY Women, according to this book I have, "Woman: An INtimate Geography" by Natalie Angier, the way it works tends to promote a supermodel-esque body type.

When I read that, I suddenly found myself very amused by the Greeks and Romans, and also amused that I tended to stray towards 'tomboys'.

Actually there are people who are considered intersexed that aren't ambiguous at birth. Many of them will never know that they have anything different about them (usually it's chromosomal). XY women usually don't discover it until after they fail to get their periods.
i don't know that XY women and XX men are considered "intersexed"; yes, their genes and their bodies don't "match up," but they aren't inter-sex in many cases. they often are very clearly female or very clearly male, but simply don't have the chromosomes one would expect.

i guess this is an area of even MORE ambiguity! huzzah for a spectrum of human sexual identity!

...and what would you know about eliminating prejudice, if I may ask?
PY 203. Social Psychology. We studied the various methods of eliminating prejudice. The #1 way if exposure. The best way to eliminate prejudice is to put groups that hate eachother together.

Actually no. If I wasn't afraid of people splattering insults at me all over my computer screen, I wouldn't dare write the things I did as my sig. Honestly I've gotten quite tired of people trying to make me cry. It's a pointless effort. :D
It would be much greater to open your mind. This is irrelevant to most people, but I'm sure it means something to you. *I* am white. And racism is ignorant.

My Philosophy professor showed us a newspaper article he'd saved. A black man was researching racism and he'd decided to interview a Klan member. The Klan member reluctantly agreed. Well, they'd had several issues with security (fights between the local KKK and gangs), so they met in a restaurant, surrounded by the Klan's bodyguards. They met several times and, surprisingly, they became close friends.

The black man spent time with the Klan member's family, including on Christmas. A short time after that, the Klan member renounced his ways, and basically said that his whole life had been a mistake. You don't hear David Duke talking about that, do you? :) While I do agree that minorities often cry persecution when it isn't there, the KKK's "white power" is just as damaging to society as the Black Panther's "black power."

Not only is "hermaphrodite" derogatory, it is also incorrect - it is a physiologic impossibility.

It is fallacious stigma, and if intersex people don't want to be referred to as "hermaphrodites", we should not refer to them as such, especially considering the error in the designation. Failing to do that would make you a petty, rude person who just wants to continue using hurtful epithets because of some need to be mean.
My first name, William, has a fallacious stigma, and if I don't want to be referred to as "William", you should not refer to me as such.

So, instead, you are to all refer to me as Pimpmaster Stud G to the Max 9000. If you do not, I will be highly offended.

But no, this idea that hermaphrodite meant "both" isn't true. Not medically, anyway, and even if you call them "intersexed" that still doesn't remove the stigma, because it still sounds like a word with the same meaning. Inter means "between." Instead of saying they're a combination (as with the Greek myth), now you're saying they're something "between" both. So, basically, you're saying the same thing in different terms.

Actual women in that they're able to pop a baby out from between their legs. (Theoretically, even one's sex, like one's sexuality, is always on a sliding scale, but there's that critical point of breedin ability that makes things muddier) I was under the impression that some 'women', somewhat like female hyenas, can end up with more masculine-looking parts, but still otherwise be fully 'female' as far as anything else is concerned.
i'd be careful about defining "actual woman" as women who pop out babies...i'm as female as they come, but i don't think i'm ever going to have a baby. defining a woman by her ability to reproduce is silly (in my opinion), just as it is silly to define a man by his ability to produce sperm.

what about "normal" individuals who just happen to have a problem with their reproductive organs? what about people who are injured in the reproductive system before they hit puberty, and thus never become reproductively fertile during their lifetime? what about women who can get pregnant, but who cannot carry a pregnancy to term?

i don't know that XY women and XX men are considered "intersexed"; yes, their genes and their bodies don't "match up," but they aren't inter-sex in many cases. they often are very clearly female or very clearly male, but simply don't have the chromosomes one would expect.

i guess this is an area of even MORE ambiguity! huzzah for a spectrum of human sexual identity!

Usually they are. Well at least by organizations like the Intersexed Society of North America (http://www.isna.org) . Usually the intersexed umbrella consists of any non-standard sexual situation. So XX males, XY females, XXY's, mosaics, chimeras, etc. that develop 'normally' in utero are all 'intersexed'

Usually they are. Well at least by organizations like the <a href="isna.org">Intersexed Organization of North America</a>. Usually the intersexed umbrella consists of any non-standard sexual situation. So XX males, XY females, XXY's, mosaics, chimeras, etc. that develop 'normally' in utero are all 'intersexed'
cool...i learn something new every day!

True enough, Bottle (Though I meant capable due to the way your sexual genetics work, but anyways). It's all very very messy. Let's face it, there's no such thing as male and female. There's just a collection of physical and psychological features, many of which are unrelated.

There's no such thing as a woman, a man, or anything else.

Oh, and Plutophobia: Basically the ol' Jim and Huck trick?

My first name, William, has a fallacious stigma, and if I don't want to be referred to as "William", you should not refer to me as such.

So, instead, you are to all refer to me as Pimpmaster Stud G to the Max 9000. If you do not, I will be highly offended.

That isn't even comparable, and the fact that you diminish the matter purposefully in such a matter seems to confirm my suspicion of why you did and do it, and would continue to.

But no, this idea that hermaphrodite meant "both" isn't true. Not medically, anyway, and even if you call them "intersexed" that still doesn't remove the stigma, because it still sounds like a word with the same meaning.

You didn't read the Faq I linked to at all, did you?

Inter means "between." Instead of saying they're a combination (as with the Greek myth), now you're saying they're something "between" both. So, basically, you're saying the same thing in different terms.

No. "Hermaphrodite" is completely erroneus. Intersex is closer to the truth as it deals only with the sex; it places no gender or any other sexual stigmas at all.

True enough, Bottle (Though I meant capable due to the way your sexual genetics work, but anyways). It's all very very messy. Let's face it, there's no such thing as male and female. There's just a collection of physical and psychological features, many of which are unrelated.

There's no such thing as a woman, a man, or anything else.
i'm all for ambiguity of sexual identity...i don't see why people want to limit things to two black-versus-white sexes with tightly restricted roles. but then, i am bisexual, so i'm bound to be more "flexible" than the average bear. :)

The should be allowed to marry. Nevertheless, I'd never allow a transexual to get any near a church

Nevertheless, I'd never allow a transexual to get any near a church
even if that church welcomed them?

The should be allowed to marry. Nevertheless, I'd never allow a transexual to get any near a church

Such luck that you are in no position to violate the rights of people in such a manner, then.

The should be allowed to marry. Nevertheless, I'd never allow a transexual to get any near a church
why?

i would love something, anything, from the bible....just to make me despise it even more

Nevertheless, I'd never allow a transexual to get any near a church
Why is that?

i'm all for ambiguity of sexual identity...i don't see why people want to limit things to two black-versus-white sexes with tightly restricted roles. but then, i am bisexual, so i'm bound to be more "flexible" than the average bear. :)

Bisexual women make the world go 'round. Mine at least, heh.

But really, there's only sets of features... like with any other measure of attractiveness...

A 'typical female' would just be at one side of the spectrum, with a full list of:

Uterus/Vagina/Womb/Fun Parts
Breasts with fatty tissue
XX Chromosomes
Baby-popping power.

But there are plenty of sterile 'women' and many 'women' who have smaller breasts than many men.

Really, it should all go in to the overall preference lists.

Of course, then people will call you a bigot for preffering uteruses to scrotum, like when people got mad at me for preffering B cups to DD cups.

The world got very stupid when you suddenly weren't allowed to dislike someone's looks...

Well, since people wonder what the Christian idea of this would be. God is, if I recall correctly, a Hermaphrodite; so I'd say it's probably be the sexuality closest to their genetics. Like if an intersexed individual cannot become pregnant but is able to impregnate a woman they should be considered a man...but if they can become pregnant but not impregnate a woman, then they should be considered female. If they can produce both, then I'm not certain...I'd assume they could marry anyone who would be willing to marry them. In this way they are not violating God's command to "Be fertile and multiply" since they are continuing the human race as God would want.

I dunno for sure, but this seems to make the most sense...I think I'll add this to my list of question to ask my priest when I get the chance.

That isn't even comparable, and the fact that you diminish the matter purposefully in such a matter seems to confirm my suspicion of why you did and do it, and would continue to.

You didn't read the Faq I linked to at all, did you?

No. "Hermaphrodite" is completely erroneus. Intersex is closer to the truth as it deals only with the sex; it places no gender or any other sexual stigmas at all.
What difference has the word "black" done, in place of "negro"? And what difference has the word "African-American" done, in place of black?

None.

Intersex is no different. Its origin is irrelevant. Medically, there are ways of classifying gender now. There's no need to re-define or rename them, just because some people are offended.

It is a genetic abnormality, a mutation. Should we also name children born with more or less than two legs "bipedally-challenged"? What euphemism should we give to the babies with harlequin ecthyosis?

No, this is absolutely ridiculous. Most hermaphrodites have a strong desire to choose one sex over the other and be just like everybody else. This idea of creating a new gender, and having some title to glorify it is ridiculous. They deserve dignity and respect, but a new word will solve nothing.

Well, since people wonder what the Christian idea of this would be. God is, if I recall correctly, a Hermaphrodite; so I'd say it's probably be the sexuality closest to their genetics. Like if an intersexed individual cannot become pregnant but is able to impregnate a woman they should be considered a man...but if they can become pregnant but not impregnate a woman, then they should be considered female. If they can produce both, then I'm not certain...I'd assume they could marry anyone who would be willing to marry them. In this way they are not violating God's command to "Be fertile and multiply" since they are continuing the human race as God would want.

I dunno for sure, but this seems to make the most sense...I think I'll add this to my list of question to ask my priest when I get the chance.
intersexed individuals are very often infertile.

and your description seems to suggest that anybody who is infertile shouldn't be allowed to marry. what about people who are fertile but choose not to have children? what about people who choose to adopt children, instead?

The should be allowed to marry. Nevertheless, I'd never allow a transexual to get any near a church
god forbid...

Well, since people wonder what the Christian idea of this would be. God is, if I recall correctly, a Hermaphrodite; so I'd say it's probably be the sexuality closest to their genetics. Like if an intersexed individual cannot become pregnant but is able to impregnate a woman they should be considered a man...but if they can become pregnant but not impregnate a woman, then they should be considered female. If they can produce both, then I'm not certain...I'd assume they could marry anyone who would be willing to marry them. In this way they are not violating God's command to "Be fertile and multiply" since they are continuing the human race as God would want.

I dunno for sure, but this seems to make the most sense...I think I'll add this to my list of question to ask my priest when I get the chance.

1) Sterile people

2) People who are almost entirely one gender physically, but genetically otherwise.

This is all done through gene therapy. If they want to be male, they pump them full of testosterone-producing drugs, and if they want to be female, they pump them full of estrogen-producing drugs.

Just to be pedantic, this is not gene therapy, it is hormone therapy.

And I believe the people in question are generally called intersex these days, by themselves as well as others, if it helps.

Meanwhile, to answer the question, any two consenting adults should be able to get a legal marriage so, yes, intersexed people should be allowed.

intersexed individuals are very often infertile.

and your description seems to suggest that anybody who is infertile shouldn't be allowed to marry. what about people who are fertile but choose not to have children? what about people who choose to adopt children, instead?
Well, I really don't know enough about my church's beliefs to go into detail on infertile interesexed indeviduals. I suppose then that when they get to a certain point they take on the gender they feel they fit the best and live life as a normal infertile person would.
2) People who are almost entirely one gender physically, but genetically otherwise.
If they have genetics that allow them to reproduce as a gender, then they would still follow my first assumption...if they cannot reproduce, then I'd say go with the one I made in this post.

Keep in mind this is all my opinion.

I agree that dodging the technical term is silly.

However, the "technical term" does not actually apply. Hermaphrodite would suggest that the person has the capabilities of both sexes, which they do not.

An interesting question that no one has brought up before this page - what about chimeras? What if someone is partially XX and partially XY due to having absorbed a fraternal twin in the womb?

1) To my knowledge, unless they get transplants, the people who are born opposite their genetic gender are always sterile. I know the Cindy Crawford men are. Their internal structure doesn't form in to an actual female reproductive system, just enough for fun.

2) Whatever the technical term IS, I'll go with that. I made no claim as to what it was.

3) No i-bloody-dea on Chimeras. One hears even less about them.

I know the Cindy Crawford men are.
the what now?

No, this is absolutely ridiculous. Most hermaphrodites have a strong desire to choose one sex over the other and be just like everybody else. This idea of creating a new gender, and having some title to glorify it is ridiculous. They deserve dignity and respect, but a new word will solve nothing.

Most intersexed people don't want to be considered a third gender. We just have a set of issues that are unique. Legally I'm male, even though I was born with a Uterus. My parents and doctors wanted me to be male very badly, having surgery done on me and pumping me with hormones.

Having people you respect tell you that what your body's doing is wrong, when it feels right gets to you. It's a set of problems that most people, thankfully never have to deal with. Nothing more, nothing less.

Is this all because of Chyna?

anyway why did people actually pick no? what possible reason could they have to be against it?

I've always wanted to be with a hermaphrodite - I don't exactly know why.

Most intersexed people don't want to be considered a third gender. We just have a set of issues that are unique. Legally I'm male, even though I was born with a Uterus. My parents and doctors wanted me to be male very badly, having surgery done on me and pumping me with hormones.

Having people you respect tell you that what your body's doing is wrong, when it feels right gets to you. It's a set of problems that most people, thankfully never have to deal with. Nothing more, nothing less.
You're right, but I just worry that this will become the next stigma, like race or sexual-preference. I don't want to see the Professor of Harvard get caught in a scandal for making a scientifically-accurate comment about intersexed people. I don't want to turn on television and see "Intersexed TV." When I jump onto the bus, I don't want a person telling me I jumped in front of them, because I'm prejudiced against intersexed people.

You see what I'm saying? Prejudice, when given words to define it, often turns into reverse-prejudice.

What difference has the word "black" done, in place of "negro"? And what difference has the word "African-American" done, in place of black?

None.

What are you talking about?

Intersex is no different. Its origin is irrelevant. Medically, there are ways of classifying gender now. There's no need to re-define or rename them, just because some people are offended.

If you had read the Faq I linked to, you would have seen that "Intersex" is what the new medical term is going to be, as it is the correct one. Much more so than "hermaphrodite", which does not exist.

It is a genetic abnormality, a mutation.

You seem to know very little about this; it doesn't have to be a genetic "abnormality" or "mutation" at all. Look into intrauterine hormonal bursts. Maybe it's time for you to read what I linked to?

Should we also name children born with more or less than two legs "bipedally-challenged"?

What's wrong with "one-legged" or "three-legged"?

What euphemism should we give to the babies with harlequin ecthyosis?

Babies with Ichthyosis Fetalis, and not "creepy, weird looking babies" as you would seem to prefer, with your penchant for the derogatory.

No, this is absolutely ridiculous. Most hermaphrodites have a strong desire to choose one sex over the other and be just like everybody else. This idea of creating a new gender, and having some title to glorify it is ridiculous. They deserve dignity and respect, but a new word will solve nothing.

Time for you to read what I linked to and stop demonstrating your ignorance in this matter.

3) No i-bloody-dea on Chimeras. One hears even less about them.

That's because they aren't obvious. It takes genetic testing of several different tissues to find them, but they are more common than you might think. Thing is, testing isn't done unless there is something weird, like a mother having a child but her blood showing that she is not technically the mother of that child. Then, further testing turns up the fact that her reproductive system is actually different DNA than herself.

The whole idea of classifying certain gender roles based on genetics is flawed, as the sex chromosomes can do all sorts of interesting things. One can be XO, XY, XX, XXY, XXXY, XYY, XXYY, and so on and develop, for the most part, normally.

Many women with Turner's syndrome start out in the womb as an XY zygote. However, an improper division results in most of their cells being XO, so they develop mostly as female. Years later, when they don't get a period, their parents genereally take them in for testing and it could turn out that they have undescended testes (which must be removed, as they are a huge cancer risk).

anyway why did people actually pick no? what possible reason could they have to be against it?

Because it might open up marriage to "teh gays."

The whole idea of classifying certain gender roles based on genetics is flawed, as the sex chromosomes can do all sorts of interesting things. One can be XO, XY, XX, XXY, XXXY, XYY, XXYY, and so on and develop, for the most part, normally.

Many women with Turner's syndrome start out in the womb as an XY zygote. However, an improper division results in most of their cells being XO, so they develop mostly as female. Years later, when they don't get a period, their parents genereally take them in for testing and it could turn out that they have undescended testes (which must be removed, as they are a huge cancer risk).

And then you get the mosaics as well (I know you hint at that in the second paragraph). And that gives you all sorts of "fun" combinations of sex chromosomes. XO/XY, XX/XXY, etc

It's certainly not a nice clear cut situation.

I say they should be, just like everyone else.

What difference has the word "black" done, in place of "negro"? And what difference has the word "African-American" done, in place of black?

None.

Intersex is no different. Its origin is irrelevant. Medically, there are ways of classifying gender now. There's no need to re-define or rename them, just because some people are offended.

It is a genetic abnormality, a mutation. Should we also name children born with more or less than two legs "bipedally-challenged"? What euphemism should we give to the babies with harlequin ecthyosis?

No, this is absolutely ridiculous. Most hermaphrodites have a strong desire to choose one sex over the other and be just like everybody else. This idea of creating a new gender, and having some title to glorify it is ridiculous. They deserve dignity and respect, but a new word will solve nothing.

I'm guessing you are not black. Or do you prefer "honkey"?

i prefer to be called cracker

It gives me the munchies

honkey makes me think of honkey tonk truck driver - which is also sorta cute

that said - hermaphrodites are super perfect beings and you should be jealous that you aren't one.

anyway why did people actually pick no? what possible reason could they have to be against it?
interesting how none of them seem willing to come forward and explain their position. not surprising, just interesting.

interesting how none of them seem willing to come forward and explain their position. not surprising, just interesting.

Are you saying they should be allowed enter into something that has a millenia-long tradition of abuse? :P

Are you saying they should be allowed enter into something that has a millenia-long tradition of abuse? :P
don't get me wrong, i don't know why anybody of character would want to dirty their union by applying the word "marriage" to it...i know i sure as hell can do without it, and i am strongly pushing for the right to have a civil union with my lover so that we don't have to resort to marriage to get the rights of a life-couple. but if intersexed people want to subject themselves to that, well, everybody gets to choose their poison :).

I'm guessing you are not black. Or do you prefer "honkey"?
"Negro" isn't a racial slur, though. It's offensive now, yes, but the root of the word means "black." It didn't have any racist origin. Latin-American countries often still call blacks "negros" (as that's 'black' in their language). The point I was making, though, is that changing the word didn't eliminate racism. Words can change how we percieve reality, yes, but the term "African-American" is a false definition. If you're from Jamaica, you're still considered an "African-American." And, I can't see how the words negro, black, or African-American would have any kind of different effect. Well, negro would now, because it's considered so offensive, but if it had never been changed to begin with, I don't think it would've made a difference.

"Colored", though, I think is an inappropriate term, as well as "people of color." Any kind of term which means un-white just seems retarded to me (the same way people often define Protestant as un-Catholic).

"Negro" isn't a racial slur, though. It's offensive now, yes, but the root of the word means "black." It didn't have any racist origin. Latin-American countries often still call blacks "negros" (as that's 'black' in their language). The point I was making, though, is that changing the word didn't eliminate racism. Words can change how we percieve reality, yes, but the term "African-American" is a false definition. If you're from Jamaica, you're still considered an "African-American." And, I can't see how the words negro, black, or African-American would have any kind of different effect. Well, negro would now, because it's considered so offensive, but if it had never been changed to begin with, I don't think it would've made a difference.

It's really funny when someone tries to tell you about the African-Americans in the UK, or, even better, the African-Americans in Africa. =)

Seriously though, all the -American terms are divisive. It has little to do with PC, and does nothing but remind us of the pointless little groups we like to segregate ourselves into.

African-American and similar terms are used because, frankly, some of us nice pale folk (I'm part Native, but still pale) have no i-fricking-dea what we're allowed to call people from certain backgrounds (particularly African and Mexican).

When you need to reference "People who have genetic origins in the Aztec and Spanish blend of humans Mexico", do you call them "Mexicans", "Mexican-whatevers", or "Latinos". Amoungst themselves, "Mexican" and "Latino" are usually safe, but if YOU use it, you might get the crap beat out of you for acting 'racist'.

Similarly, "People who have genetic origins in the dark-skinned human groups of Africa" have "Black", "Negro", "Colored", "African", "African-American", et cetera. Many of them will refer to each other as '******', but YOU can't use the word. Negro is often seen as ****** lite, and everything else is wholly preference, 'black' and 'colored', both have segegrating feelings with some people, and, again, you usually have to BE the proper hue to USE the word without angering SOMEONE.

The stupid X-American thing is perpetuated by over-defensiveness, and just makes it sound like, ultimately, anything but a Whitey-American is unusual, when it's as much the norm as anything else.

Vicious cycle.

I myself usually get stuck with "Of X descent".

I'd love it if this barrier fell. I've been surrounded by 99% white people most of my life, and most of the other groups have either avoided me, or been hostile (Goddamned Gangsta BS in farming areas). I'd love if it was that much easier to make friends like my roommate from 2000. I did have to get used to being reffered to as 'dawg', but he was a great guy, and I'd actually hang out with him playing video games and such, while I try to utterly ignore my current roommates. Meh.

The stupid X-American thing is perpetuated by over-defensiveness, and just makes it sound like, ultimately, anything but a Whitey-American is unusual, when it's as much the norm as anything else.

Vicious cycle.

AMEN!!! Ironically, every American is an "African-American" - since homosapiens originated in East Africa.

"Negro" isn't a racial slur, though. It's offensive now, yes, but the root of the word means "black." It didn't have any racist origin. Latin-American countries often still call blacks "negros" (as that's 'black' in their language). The point I was making, though, is that changing the word didn't eliminate racism. Words can change how we percieve reality, yes, but the term "African-American" is a false definition. If you're from Jamaica, you're still considered an "African-American." And, I can't see how the words negro, black, or African-American would have any kind of different effect. Well, negro would now, because it's considered so offensive, but if it had never been changed to begin with, I don't think it would've made a difference.

"Colored", though, I think is an inappropriate term, as well as "people of color." Any kind of term which means un-white just seems retarded to me (the same way people often define Protestant as un-Catholic).

It is very nice of you to tell people of color what they should be called and tell them they shouldn't be offended by terms that have been used as slurs.

So you think people of color choose to call themselves or prefer to be called is "retarded." Perhaps they don't care what you think. Perhaps they think that it is what they think that matters and you should show a little respect.

Some terms have garnered disafavor because of how they have been used. Other terms are put forth to change the dynamic.

As race is a socio-political concept to begin with, it makes perfect sense that racial labels are a socio-political tool. One that minorities should be allowed to use as a positive.

It's really funny when someone tries to tell you about the African-Americans in the UK, or, even better, the African-Americans in Africa. =)

Seriously though, all the -American terms are divisive. It has little to do with PC, and does nothing but remind us of the pointless little groups we like to segregate ourselves into.

How rude of blacks to have segregated themselves. But I thought they had some help with that, didn't they?

And the other minorities. If they just wouldn't be so divisive, we'd all be one happy family. Please. :rolleyes:

Perhaps if you'd stop lecturing minorities and started listening you'd learn something.

How rude of blacks to have segregated themselves. But I thought they had some help with that, didn't they?

And the other minorities. If they just wouldn't be so divisive, we'd all be one happy family. Please. :rolleyes:

Perhaps if you'd stop lecturing minorities and started listening you'd learn something.

You really like to add what you want to see into completely innocuous statements, don't you?

Who said anything about lecturing minorities?

*All* groups in this day and age are guilty of segregating themselves. I have been lucky enough to be the type of person who travels between groups, but the segregation is propogated by all types of person. When I said "we", I was referring to "human beings", who very much like to be segregated by whatever means they can be.

All I was pointing out is that calling yourself or someone else "X-American" simply *adds* division. We are American - regadless of skin, hair, eye color or gender.

You really like to add what you want to see into completely innocuous statements, don't you?

Are you implying that I'm GAY??? It's GO TIME!

Are you implying that I'm GAY??? It's GO TIME!

I AM NOT SHORT! =)

I AM NOT SHORT! =)

I did not mean to imply that. You have taken what I said completely out of context, you freakin' dwarf.

http://www.isna.org/faq/hermaphrodite

"Hermaphrodite" is seen as a derogatory term, and is being deprecated and replaced by the more neutral "intersex(ed)".
PC Alert! PC Alert! :rolleyes:

PC Alert! PC Alert! :rolleyes:

That might be true, if it weren't for the clear fact that hermaphrodite is a technically incorrect term.

That might be true, if it weren't for the clear fact that hermaphrodite is a technically incorrect term.
My mistake, I should have read further down the thread.

My mistake, I should have read further down the thread.

The term is entirely correct if you are a seahorse.

You're thinking of sea cucumbers, snails, worms, et cetera. SCs even mate in circles sometimes... kinky.

Sea horses are the usual 'male/female' thing. Just that the female lays her eggs IN the male.

Though there ARE fish who will CHANGE gender.. they're only one at a time.

You're thinking of sea cucumbers, snails, worms, et cetera. SCs even mate in circles sometimes... kinky.

Sea horses are the usual 'male/female' thing. Just that the female lays her eggs IN the male.

Though there ARE fish who will CHANGE gender.. they're only one at a time.

Steve Zissou was wrong?

Yep.

http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/BonyFish/reproduction.html

Read the whole thing, there are some weird fish that require being humped by unrelated fish to reproduce, but which are asexual females. The sperm just causes the egg to mature, it doesn't add any DNA.

Science rocks.

I once read a fanfiction where Orlando Bloom was a hermaphrodite, and made himself pregnant.

o.0;

Fanfiction about actors scares me. I swear Orlando is going to come into his kitchen one day and find his pet rabbit boiling on the hob.

Yep.

http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/BonyFish/reproduction.html

Read the whole thing, there are some weird fish that require being humped by unrelated fish to reproduce, but which are asexual females. The sperm just causes the egg to mature, it doesn't add any DNA.

Science rocks.

I followed your pornographic fish link. Have you no shame? I have reported this to the moderators. How's this for a fish link: Link 2 fish with 5 loaves and spread the love of Christ like Lox on the bagel of troubled waters.

I followed your pornographic fish link. Have you no shame? I have reported this to the moderators. How's this for a fish link: Link 2 fish with 5 loaves and spread the love of Christ like Lox on the bagel of troubled waters.

I counter with a huge white whale and a guy with only one leg.

I counter with a huge white whale and a guy with only one leg.

Greater Yubari tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him!!!!!!!

I followed your pornographic fish link. Have you no shame? I have reported this to the moderators. How's this for a fish link: Link 2 fish with 5 loaves and spread the love of Christ like Lox on the bagel of troubled waters.

Ah, yes.

The evils of Seaworld.

Ah, yes.

The evils of Seaworld.

Seaworld?? Satanworld, more like. Huge aquatic mammals pounding their flesh through the surf, spurting foam from their blowholes and fornicatious dolphins wet-humping anything that moves - You know, there's a reason forbidden reef is forbidden - and don't even get me started on "penguin encounter". Sick, just sick.

Well I have encountered someone who wanted to...

Yeah, you know what, I'm not going there.

Keep your tuna dolphin safe, kill all dolphins so they don't end up in the cans!

It is very nice of you to tell people of color what they should be called and tell them they shouldn't be offended by terms that have been used as slurs.

So you think people of color choose to call themselves or prefer to be called is "retarded." Perhaps they don't care what you think. Perhaps they think that it is what they think that matters and you should show a little respect.

Some terms have garnered disafavor because of how they have been used. Other terms are put forth to change the dynamic.

As race is a socio-political concept to begin with, it makes perfect sense that racial labels are a socio-political tool. One that minorities should be allowed to use as a positive.
Stop reacting so emotionally. And re-read what I said, particularly:

Well, negro would now, because it's considered so offensive, but if it had never been changed to begin with, I don't think it would've made a difference.
Yes, words are used as a socio-political tool, but what function could these new words serve? "Black" is just another word for "negro" (they both mean black). The word "******" came about as a result of a southern slur of "negro", and that's a racial slur. So, we should've abolished the word 'negro' because of ONE racial slur, that originated from the word?

And then, even after "black" was used. There's the racial slur "blackie." Even though it's very uncommon, it's still a racial slur.

In other words, negro and black are identical. Neither are racist and both have racial slurs which originated from them. I'm not saying we should order a certain race to call themselves anything. Just pointing out the irrationality of these politically-correct labels, as well as how, obviously, the word "African-American" is meaningless. We're all Americans. We may have different colored skin, but being from Africa doesn't mean you're black, and not all blacks are of African descent.

How rude of blacks to have segregated themselves. But I thought they had some help with that, didn't they?
No. People have a tendency to segregate themselves naturally. Go to any high school with multiple cultures. You'll often see a "black" side of the room, a "white" side of the room, a "spanish" side of the room, and then you'll have the Asians breakdancing in a corner somewhere (just kidding).

Perhaps if you'd stop lecturing minorities and started listening you'd learn something.
On one hand, I agree that there is still inequality in America. But it is mostly cultural remnants of the past, not the specific, conscious acts of people living today. Minorities often demonize people and cry persecution, when it isn't there.

My cousin was waiting at a bus stop once. The bus came by. He walked towards it and a black lady jumped in front of him, shoving him, saying, "I am getting on the bus first." It was absolutely ridiculous.

Here's an ironic story for you. A friend of mine wasn't racist, but then some jerk spread rumors that he was. Well, he ended up getting beaten up by about 10 black dudes. Then, after that, he was racist, because he couldn't believe what bullshit it was.

I oppose racism and I think there should be social programs to benefit minorities, in order to improve equality. But they're often ridiculous and villify innocent people. Yes, "reverse racism" does exist.