Upon reading various threads on this forum on intersexuality, I am left puzzled by some of the assumptions and perspectives I’ve seen. I don’t really know how to formulate my questions, so if you’d all bear with me, I’d like to write out my thought processes and perhaps we can go from there?
Thus far on the forum, all of the intersexed persons have spoken of a clear identification with one gender within a set of two; meaning, they feel that they are either profoundly male or profoundly female psychologically. I have yet to hear a person talk about feeling profoundly unique in terms of their category of person. Meaning, none seem to identify as a true androgynous person, accepting both “male” and “female” traits as a cohesive whole with corresponding mind/soul to that physical state. One person, assumed not an intersexual, mentioned “angelic soul” as a possible perspective, but this perspective, it seemed to me, was dismissed by the people here. I’d like to know why.
In addition, I think it is relevant to point out that that (at least it seems to me) the persons here have felt that their intersexuality was a mistake or error of nature. (Please forgive me if I have completely misinterpreted.) Not so much that they think God erred, but that their physicality does not accurately correspond to their inner experience–that they have an “inner person” that is in conflict (for whatever scientific reason) with the “outer person”. None here seem to claim to possess an inner nature of intersexuality that corresponds to the outer-physical intersexuality. They all seem to unanimously proclaim a disconnect.
I haven’t studied this subject, but I’m wondering if there are persons who really self-identify as a TRUE third category and feel that they are totally androgynous in mind and body? I think this is really important, and I shall attempt to explain why…
Thus far all of the talk has been about “this third category of person” that the Church hasn’t “admitted to” and is “pushing aside.”
What I find even more difficult for me to understand is why people are talking about intersexuality as being in God’s plan. The following statements are just me trying to understand, and if I contain any errors of fact, please do not be offended, and instead correct me. I’m really trying to bring more light to the situation I always thought that it was part of Catholic doctrine to understand that the world, as we live in it now, is in a fallen, broken state. Original sin isn’t just an inner brokenness. Nature’s order and balance has been disrupted too. Even though God, in his infinite glory, knows how to use all brokenness toward ultimate Good, that is not to say that God willed it or created it as thus. For example, I thought it was correct to say that God doesn’t will/create genetic mutations and diseases. These are supposed to be seen as evidences of the fallen state of the world. Why not look at intersexuality like any other genetic, medical mutation?
Personally, I’m completely unbiased and open on this topic. I could see how the reality could be either way; either a) that there could exist a true third category of person, created by God, who is both physically and spiritually intersexed, or b) that intersexuality is a physical deformity, and spiritually their are only female and male souls, or c) both A and B could be possible.
I think the Church is right to not have an definitive answer on this topic, as it looks like even among the people who even KNOW of this situation (the intersexed people themselves), there doesn’t seem to be total agreement or understanding.I’m sure the transgender phenomenon as added greatly to the inability to understand the situation. It’s obvious the Church, as a body of lay and religious people, is not doing a great job of getting to the bottom of it. But really, only if truly androgynous persons exist (in body and soul), are any real problems posed for the Church. (As far as I can tell.)
Because, if the intersexed people are claiming not to be truly intersexed in body & spirit, inner and outer capacities, but actually possessing a disconnect of body and soul, and identify with the same male/female genders, then it seems logical to me that we would, no matter how difficult it might be, look at intersexuality as a deformity of the intended order of nature and not a new, third category. IF that is the case, I can’t even imagine what it would be like to have to endure that. Similarly, I can’t imagine what it would be life to be born with any other physical deformity that would alienate or preclude a person from functioning as other “normal” persons do, be it Siamese twins, severe cerebral palsy, or anything.
IF it is a case of broken nature, is it really the Church that is “forbidding” the person from marriage or is it nature? If, by definition, marriage is a physical union and a spiritual union, and physical union is not possible, then how could a marriage possibly exist? Intersexed people, correct me if I’m wrong, don’t seem to be asking the Church to redefine sexuality so much as they are asking the Church to redefine marriage. For, the intersexed people here seem to uphold the binary sexuality distinction. What is disputed, is whether the definition of marriage should include the distinct characteristic of physical consumation. It seems that they may be asking the Church to accept a spiritual marriage and lifestyle commitment to be “enough” to consider it a valid marriage, and not require the physical marriage. (Continued)