Are Intersexed People Truly Human?

[Zoe_Brain]

From Catholic.org :

I have a nightmare in which I look ahead twenty-five years or so and I see a bland, ambiguous society simmering with an undercurrent of antagonism. I see a culture largely without men and women, made up instead of some strangely amalgamated human creature. This creature is not truly human anymore because it has declared gender and the Natural Law to be irrelevant and oppressive. In that tragic mistake, it lost its freedom and fulfillment.

I think it’s more than just a melodramatic bad dream. It’s slowly coming true right now, in bits and pieces every day.

From OII (Australia):

What is Intersex?
Intersex people are people who, as individuals, have genetic, hormonal and physical features that may be thought to be typical of both male and female at once. That is, we may be thought of as being male with female features, female with male features, or indeed we may have no clearly defined sexual features at all.

**
What is OII Australia?**
We are the Australian affiliate of Organisation Internationale des Intersexués - the only worldwide organisation of intersex people, and the largest organisation of intersex people.

Mission
* To support intersex individuals by providing information and contact with other intersex people.
* Campaign in favour of human rights for the intersexed.
* Encourage an exchange of ideas and different perspectives about intersex from various groups and geographical regions.
* Provide information concerning actual life experiences of people with intersex variations to medical personnel working with infants with atypical sex anatomy, to psychological experts, sexologists, sociologists and specialists in feminism.
* To assist families and friends of intersexed individuals to understand intersexuality and to cope with the specific problems related to the role as a support person.

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI TO THE MEMBERS OF THE DIPLOMATIC CORPS FOR THE TRADITIONAL EXCHANGE OF NEW YEAR GREETINGS

To carry our reflection further, we must remember that the problem of the environment is complex; one might compare it to a multifaceted prism. Creatures differ from one another and can be protected, or endangered, in different ways, as we know from daily experience. One such attack comes from laws or proposals which, in the name of fighting discrimination, strike at the biological basis of the difference between the sexes. I am thinking, for example, of certain countries in Europe or North and South America.

Discuss.

 

[Jermosh]

You have to furthur alude what your point is, both those articles dont really state anything on intersex from what I can see.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

You have to furthur alude what your point is, both those articles dont really state anything on intersex from what I can see.

.

**…without men and women, made up instead of some strangely amalgamated human creature. This creature is not truly human anymore **
as compared to…
we may be thought of as being male with female features, female with male features, or indeed we may have no clearly defined sexual features at all.
Perhaps you can enlighten me on the difference you see between these concepts, a difference so huge you see no connection?

Historically, Intersexed people have been denied basic human rights - so much so that Intersex Organisations have been formed to campaign for those rights. In recent years, they have had some success, in Europe and the Americas. The discrimination they face is a consequence of their existence, not their actions: The mere existence of Intersexed people strikes at the biological basis of the difference between the sexes. It makes many uncomfortable, particularly conservative theologians.
One such attack comes from laws or proposals which, in the name of fighting discrimination, strike at the biological basis of the difference between the sexes. I am thinking, for example, of certain countries in Europe or North and South America.

Note that the word “homosexuality” was not in the Pope’s speech, though it’s at least arguable that he was referring to that as well. But he only talked about the “biological basis”.

 

[Reepicheep]

1. There are people who, through no fault of their own, were born with characteristics of both sexes.
2. There are people who, for whatever reason, actively choose to use surgery and/or hormone treatments in the attempt to become the other sex.
3. There are people who try, through dress and behavior, to blur the line between male and female appearance in themselves and/or others.

These three things **are not the same. **
The Organisation Internationale des Intersexués might (I don’t know) be merely trying to protect members of group #1, those born that way, from discrimination or persecution.
If so, this is not at all equivalent to the actions of the second and third group.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

1. There are people who, through no fault of their own, were born with characteristics of both sexes.
2. There are people who, for whatever reason, actively choose to use surgery and/or hormone treatments in the attempt to become the other sex.
3. There are people who try, through dress and behavior, to blur the line between male and female appearance in themselves and/or others.

These three things **are not the same. **

There is considerable overlap between 1) and 2).
Many in the first category who were born with obvious genital anomalies were assigned a gender of convenience by surgery shortly after birth. About a third of the time, the coin-toss produced the wrong sex, so they seek to have the damage corrected later in life.
All of those who have ever been tested in the second category had cross-sexed anatomy. Every single one had the neuro-anatomy of the sex they were trying to transition to. It may be that they all do. Certainly the great majority do, we’ve not found one that doesn’t.

Both of these groups blur the biological distinction between male and female.

The third does not. So we can discard them from consideration. His Holiness was talking about biological differences being blurred, not superficial appearance.

OII has historically advocated for the first group. In recent times, with the evidence that far more were surgically altered than was first thought, and that all those in the second group have intersexed neurology, they have been included too to some extent.

Similarly, advocates for the second group have become increasingly vocal in their support for the first group, sometimes even placing their needs above their own.

For example:

http://oiiaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/intersex_sex_offenders_list_528.png

Those in the first and second groups both face this problem. It appears that His Holiness thinks that is right that they should do so, and that legislation that would remove discrimination is an attack on the Natural Order.

I’m on the list by the way. I’m Intersexed.

 

[Jermosh]

.

**…without men and women, made up instead of some strangely amalgamated human creature. This creature is not truly human anymore **
as compared to…
we may be thought of as being male with female features, female with male features, or indeed we may have no clearly defined sexual features at all.
Perhaps you can enlighten me on the difference you see between these concepts, a difference so huge you see no connection?

Historically, Intersexed people have been denied basic human rights - so much so that Intersex Organisations have been formed to campaign for those rights. In recent years, they have had some success, in Europe and the Americas. The discrimination they face is a consequence of their existence, not their actions: The mere existence of Intersexed people strikes at the biological basis of the difference between the sexes. It makes many uncomfortable, particularly conservative theologians.
One such attack comes from laws or proposals which, in the name of fighting discrimination, strike at the biological basis of the difference between the sexes. I am thinking, for example, of certain countries in Europe or North and South America.

Note that the word “homosexuality” was not in the Pope’s speech, though it’s at least arguable that he was referring to that as well. But he only talked about the “biological basis”.

I am taking the authors of speaking about social and cultural gender based roles being combined, not physically combinations. In America and most of the Western countries we are slowly moving away from a patriarchal system and moving into a more blurred. Some fear this, I am not sure what to think about it yet, I think the person who can do the role the best should.

 

[LilyM]

Similarly, advocates for the second group have become increasingly vocal in their support for the first group, sometimes even placing their needs above their own.

For example:

http://oiiaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/intersex_sex_offenders_list_528.png

Those in the first and second groups both face this problem. It appears that His Holiness thinks that is right that they should do so, and that legislation that would remove discrimination is an attack on the Natural Order.

I’m on the list by the way. I’m Intersexed.

I don’t think His Holiness was even contemplating the specific instance you’re outlining - it’s quite possible he doesn’t even know such forms of discrimination exist.

His pronouncement can be compared to the Church’s general pronouncements about homosexual ACTIVITY, which pronouncements do not amount to, for example, a call to reverse the legalisation of sodomy or anything remotely like.

In any event, I don’t see that even endorsing the worst possible form of discrimination would amount to a denial of one’s humanity. Women were denied the vote, and most property rights as well, for centuries, but that never meant that women were seen as anything other than truly human. They were just seen (wrongly) as humans who could not be safely given the right to vote or own property, as children still are not for the most part.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

In that case, call me a Suffragette.

This creature is not truly human anymore

Those words were in a reputable Catholic online publication.

It’s questionable if they’re human at all.

That’s from the conservative site “Free Republic”.

“I thought I killed it.”… “It’s not like I went up to a schoolteacher and shot her in the head … or like I killed a law-abiding straight citizen.”

Words of convicted murderer (and self-described Catholic) Allen Ray Andrade

As regards the “worst possible form of discrimination” being something like being denied the vote - how about being castrated? Surgically assigned a sex regardless of your wishes? Being put on a Sex Offenders registry? Being diagnosed as “Mentally Ill” if you don’t accept the sex that was arbitrarily assigned to you?

Or, as in the current bill proposed for Uganda, put to death?

Or, as in Pennsylvania, or South Africa (before they hurriedly changed the constitution for the same reason), not being considered “Natural Persons” as that category only included Men, Women and Children - so had exactly the same rights as slaves? Yes, in Pennsylvania, they did quote caselaw from the pre-abolition days.

mg.co.za/article/2009-09-19-intersex-and-the-law

Before 2006, when an obscure judicial amendment – comprising two simple definitions – was signed into law, being found to be intersexed opened up all one’s rights to challenge. But the promulgation of the Judicial Matters Amendment Act of 2005 changed this technically.

Theoretically, this Act guaranteed protection to the intersexed. Two statutory definitions turned the technical trick. The trouble was that the amendment entered the statute book by stealth: its existence and far-reaching implications have evaded attention until now in a context in which the invisibility of the intersexed, bar a handful of notable exceptions, testifies to an entrenched culture of shame, secrecy and stigmatisation.

The amendment was drafted because an American case made it clear to me that the Equality Clause did not protect the intersexed. An American federal court found that the firing of a woman because she was born intersexed did not breach a Pennsylvania equality statute similar to our Equality Clause.
…
The statute forbade discrimination on grounds of sex. The court argued that “sex”, undefined in the statute, was to be understood in its ordinary dictionary sense. So it referred to the state of being “male and not female” or “female and not male”. The upshot: it didn’t protect the intersexed.

Our Equality Clause rules discrimination on certain listed grounds, including sex, unfair unless and until proved fair, but “sex” was not defined in statute. The dictionary definition of “sex” – male, female and nothing else – therefore governed its interpretation. “Human being” and “[natural] person” are also defined as having a sex in exclusively binary terms. The intersexed, somewhere in between, could thus be argued to be neither human beings nor natural persons.

The potential consequences were terrifying.
…
In South African law, one needs locus standi, the right to address the court, to mount a legal challenge. Since the intersexed did not fit workaday definitions of “human beings” and “[natural] persons”, arguably they lacked the locus standi to challenge this or any other type of discrimination. It followed that the intersexed, because they were intersexed, had no secure rights – not even to dignity or to life itself.

I’m pretty sure the Pope wouldn’t know anything about these details. But while we mat second-guess and say “well, he was really referring to something else… homosexuality I think… maybe”. the problem is that his actual words said something else. And lawmakers will take that into account.

 

[Jermosh]

Zoe,

I quess I am really at a loss with this, you seem to jump from one thing to another. Can you explain what you are attempting to say?

I understand you are stating that there is horrible discrimination of intersexed people out there, and I fully agree with this, in fact I still have a family issue because a cousin had reconstructive surgery on their intersexed child at almost 2, I was absolutely horrified about it.

I am trying to find out what the Catholic side you are trying to state. Intersex is “new” to society, for the longest time many did not know or knew they were intersexed, and recently in history the few that did had some form of butchering at a young age by their parents on the Drs advice of “normalcy”. Before that they were most likely seen as freaks, lepers, or prized and sought out by nobles.

 

[LilyM]

Zoe - women have suffered every level and type of indignity imaginable, purely for being female, and their sufferings can fully match anything you care to name. Examples:

clitoridectomy (surgical removal of all or part of the clitoris, aka female genital mutilation) was reasonably widespread in 19th century America and Britain, and of course is still very much practiced in parts of Africa and the Middle East, and possibly other countries too, to this day.

In the West it was used as a treatment for the non-existent psychological disorder called ‘hysteria’ - in other words females who were unsatisfied with their sex lives were operated on in this manner to ‘cure’ their perfectly natural desire for sexual fulfilment. So yes, normal healthy women were wrongly classified as mentally ill at times, with appalling consequences. And they are physically mutilated.

Female infanticide is common enough to still be an issue in India and China. In other words a defenceless baby being killed for the ‘crime’ of being born female. These days of course there is also, thanks to the wonders of modern technology, gender selection of children is also possible and practiced. Ie parents having their children tested for sex before birth, because they wanting males, and aborting females.

‘Honour killings’ or ‘dowry killings’ - parents or husbands of a female being pressured to kill her either because she is suspected of sexual activity outside of marriage or simply because her fiancee’s family demand a dowry which her family are too poor to provide. Very much still goes on today.

Sati - widows or other female dependents who survived the males upon whom they were dependant being brainwashed or actually forced to commit suicide by throwing themselves upon their husband or male relative’s funeral pyre. Again, still goes on today.

No locus standi in courts? Yes, women at various times and various places couldn’t give evidence in court, and couldn’t initiate many if not all legal actions on their own behalf. In other words someone could embezzle me of my life savings, but I couldn’t sue them to retrieve the money. I had to hope that my husband, father or male relative cared enough to do so on my behalf as my legal guardian. I was at their mercy, and heaven help me if we didn’t get along for any reason, they could make my life impossible.

My point in saying all this is not to downplay or deny the sufferings of intersex people. In fact the opposite, it’s to show you that I and other women actually to a certain extent can relate, and also to give you hope that as women have won significant legal adn social victories for themselves, so can the intersex.