Intersexuality

[LittleDeb]

And men don’t receive love from God?

Everything you say sounds like it should apply regardless of sexuality.

Hmmm. If you would like the links to explain this better please let me know. I am uncertain of your intentions with these strange leading questions.

Of course men receive love from God! You are confusing male/female with masculine/feminine.

Please read this: peterkreeft.com/topics-more/sexual-symbolism.htm and listen to this: peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses.htm if you are really interested. It does not directly apply to the biological problem of the inter-sexed, but it helps explain why there are only two sexes.

Dr. Kreeft is a wonderful Catholic theologian, but some of his work is too much for some people in the beginning of understanding. If you are what Kreeft calls an “academic” you will like him right away.

 

[LittleDeb]

I would like to note something I feel is important to clarify in Dr. Kreeft’s talk. It is especially in reference to a term that can be very offensive to the inter-sexed since it is often misapplied to them.

Dr. Kreeft, however, uses the term in the proper context and according to the true definition. Kreeft refers to those groups who worship an “Hermaphrodite” god. In his usage he references it in the context of it’s real definition as- ‘one who can impregnate oneself.’

Since the inter-sexed might have appearance of both sexes the term is often misapplied to them. As far as I know there is not a case on record where an inter-sexed person was capable of producing both sperm and ovum. An inter-sexed person is neither hermaphrodite nor neutered.

I just wanted to clarify since the term is often applied incorrectly and offensively.

 

[Green_Tea]

LittleDeb:

Of course men receive love from God! You are confusing male/female with masculine/feminine.

I assumed that you were associating “male” with “masculine” and “female” with “feminine.” I apologize if that is not the case.

You said that to be “masculine” is to give, and to be “feminine” is to receive. Of course, male must both give and receive, and females must both give and receive. So in your opinion, the proper and moral thing is for each man and woman to be both masculine and feminine?

 

[LittleDeb]

I assumed that you were associating “male” with “masculine” and “female” with “feminine.” I apologize if that is not the case.

You said that to be “masculine” is to give, and to be “feminine” is to receive. Of course, male must both give and receive, and females must both give and receive. So in your opinion, the proper and moral thing is for each man and woman to be both masculine and feminine?

Ah, I think I see your confusion. Your assumption is a common one. Most people think of being masculine as something like “enjoys sports or rough games.” When you ask if it is my opinion that people be both masculine and feminine it shows that confusion.

What the Church teaches is that God is Masculine yet not male. We are all feminine in our response to Him. God doesn’t need to receive. Dr. Kreeft expounds well on this when he speaks on sexual symbolism in the link I gave you. Masculine and feminine has a divine definition. Male and female are the result of masculine and feminine. Most people think it is the reverse. They think that masculine/feminine is something defined by society. It isn’t. It is something our society has tried to define and failed miserably.

So in a nutshell, on some level you are correct. We are all masculine and feminine in the divine definition of those terms. So if you think of it as we all have masculine and feminine attributes from God, then we each have a soul that is either masculine or feminine and we have a body that is either male or female (sexual organs.) How secular society defines the above things is just one big mess.

The inter-sexed seem to struggle more in secular societies since secular societies are constantly trying to reinvent definitions that God has already defined. The answer for the biologically inter-sexed is help determining their authentic sex. This can be done if we better understand the masculinity of God. We do the inter-sexed no favors by introducing a mixed third gender or a fourth neutered gender.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

It does and has advocated gender clarification surgeries in youth, which are now rapidly falling out of disfavor due to how miserably they fail. It views ambiguous genitals as a birth defect to be corrected, however they seem to give no thought into what actually occurs when you do this.

Warning, this will be somewhat graphic and gross, but it is merely how it is.

If an infant is ambiguous and it is decided that it is female, and they will do surgery on the infant to make this gender more prominent, it will involve deepening the sexual canal. This is an open wound, and will try to heal itself to the point of which they were born. The solution is to dilate, which is done with an object that essentially looks very much like a dildo. This is required for life. This is done to infants, so obviously the infant cannot do this. It falls on the parents to dilate their own infant daughter and then teach her how to do it when she grows up.

Would anyone here be willing to do that to a child of their own, several times a week/month as it requires, just so their child fits into a sexualized ideal? I can find many posts by catholic bioethics experts saying that gender correction in youth is acceptable, yet they never make mention of what is actually required in the aftermath of such a surgery.

Since this goes to the heart of the issue, can you show where the Church has spoken on intersexuality and has advocated such surgeries and procedures? I ask because I’m not aware of any statements – though I’m by no means well read on the subject.

Peace,
Dante

 

[pathia]

Since this goes to the heart of the issue, can you show where the Church has spoken on intersexuality and has advocated such surgeries and procedures? I ask because I’m not aware of any statements – though I’m by no means well read on the subject.

Peace,
Dante

Theology of the body touches on it very briefly. There are a few other ‘answers’ sites that give the same thing. The logic is, 1) it’s a birth defect 2.) Birth defects should be fixed if possible.

The problem is the aftermath of the fixing. Unfortunately the links I found with google aren’t coming up anymore, that recent case of the transsexual woman suing the catholic hospital is clogging my search results. I’ll see if I can’t find it today after work.

 

[LittleDeb]

Theology of the body touches on it very briefly. There are a few other ‘answers’ sites that give the same thing. The logic is, 1) it’s a birth defect 2.) Birth defects should be fixed if possible.

I hope I haven’t given the impression that TOB suggests surgery. TOB is a theology not the application of medicine. The only surgery I have ever seen suggested was by bio-ethicists and that is just enough to make sure the elimination system works. How the inter-sexed were treated in early science was a medical misunderstanding coupled with fear.

TOB doesn’t say anything is really a “birth defect” except Original Sin. All of us have that.

I’m looking forward to reading some new links when you have them. They are interesting. I think the most eye-opening reading for me was the one where science was deciding boy or girl based mostly on “length!”

 

[pathia]

I hope I haven’t given the impression that TOB suggests surgery. TOB is a theology not the application of medicine. The only surgery I have ever seen suggested was by bio-ethicists and that is just enough to make sure the elimination system works. How the inter-sexed were treated in early science was a medical misunderstanding coupled with fear.

TOB doesn’t say anything is really a “birth defect” except Original Sin. All of us have that.

I’m looking forward to reading some new links when you have them. They are interesting. I think the most eye-opening reading for me was the one where science was deciding boy or girl based mostly on “length!”

tinyurl.com/44jhum

It’s from EWTN. There are quite a few answers in there that talk constantly about making sure someone belongs to one sex or another through surgery.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Theology of the body touches on it very briefly. There are a few other ‘answers’ sites that give the same thing. The logic is, 1) it’s a birth defect 2.) Birth defects should be fixed if possible.

The problem is the aftermath of the fixing. Unfortunately the links I found with google aren’t coming up anymore, that recent case of the transsexual woman suing the catholic hospital is clogging my search results. I’ll see if I can’t find it today after work.

Please also devote some time to finding where Theology of the Body speaks on the issue, and provide a quote.

In any case, TOB is not an infallibly declared doctrine of the Church, and no Catholic hospital possesses apostolic authority. Neither of these suffices as an example of the Church teaching on the issue.

Again, I say, the Church’s silence on a medical condition does not mean she condemns it. There is no Church teaching about cancer, AIDS, SARS, pneumonia, bipolar disorder, Down syndrome, or being born with no limbs – except that all human beings – no matter their physical, mental, or emotional shortcomings – are created in God’s image and, as such, are possessed of a dignity that must be recognized and which demands that they be treated charitably.

Peace,
Dante

 

[LittleDeb]

tinyurl.com/44jhum

It’s from EWTN. There are quite a few answers in there that talk constantly about making sure someone belongs to one sex or another through surgery.

I saw a lot of “may” and “can” when it came to surgery. Otherwise, yes, the Church does teach that the inter-sexed do in fact belong to one sex or the other, not both or neither, just as I illustrated before. It doesn’t say this must be reflected surgically, only that they belong to one or the other.

The only “must” I read was when it was determined which sex one was, the surgery MUST follow that direction. Meaning that if the person is in fact a female then the surgery MUST go in that direction even if the person was raised male. Also, I read that each individual has the RIGHT to corrective surgery, but never that one must have it.

To me that sounds like this priest is saying that the inter-sexed must not be denied surgery if they so choose. It sounds like these teachings are supporting you here Pathia, not forcing you to do something different. You have said you have your medical reports defining you as medically female. Note this quote: “The ultimate question of which sex is properly identifiable in a given case is left to the medical specialist.”

I would say to pursue your case using this information.

 

[Autumn_Sandeen]

Just for some historical perspective…

John Boswell’s Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Appendix Two) has a translation of Peter Cantor’s De vitio sodomitico — or On Sodomy (d. 1192 AD). Here’s the excerpt on hermaphrodites (or as we’d call them now, intersexuals), as quoted at the Ex-Gay Watch:

The Lord formed man from the slime of the earth on the plan of Damascus, later fashioning woman from his rib in Eden. Thus in considering the formation of woman, lest any should believe they would be hermaphrodites, he stated, “Male and female created he them,” as if to say, “There will not be intercourse of men with men or women with women, but only of men with women and vice versa.” For this reason the church allows a hermaphrodite — that is, someone with the organs of both sexes, capable of either active or passive functions — to use the organ by which (s)he is most aroused or the one which (s)he is more susceptible.

If (s)he is more active [literally, “lustful], (s)he may wed as a man, but if (s)he is more passive, (s)he may marry as a woman. If; however, (s)he should fail with one organ, the use of the other can never be permitted, but (s)he must be perpetually celibate to avoid any similarity to the role inversion of sodomy, which is detested by God.

 

[Dale_M]

Has anyone seen or heard of the movie XXY? Its an Argentinian film so it probably won’t get to many US theaters. The official release date for the US is May 9th, but one theater has already begun showings. And, of course, some of you may have seen the film in another country.

There are 16 reviews at Rotten Tomatoes and about 2/3 are favorable.

 

[kesa82]

A valid sexual union takes place between a married man and woman.

That’s all there is.

Sub

I absolutely agree with this. I thought that I should point that out before I said anything further though.

I doubt my anecdotes would add anything to the thread, but I can’t resist the topic.

I have noticed that - or so it seems to me - that transexuals tend to be as rigidly deterministic in their defining of sex roles as is the most reactionary and rigid of conservatives, like me for example. ( I’m a monarchist. That is pretty conservative, no? )
That is, a male-to-female transexual is as fervently wedded to the conventional female stereotype - perhaps even more so - as is a neocon Baptist soccer mom.

One of my most coveted possessions is a very pretty porcelain doll. She is dressed head to foot in pink. Sadly though I cannot show her off to people. People give me funny looks, and draw wildly off-base assumptions from it.
Women can wear trousers but I shouldn’t covet a porcelain doll?
No, I REALLY don’t get that logic.

I absolutely adore gymnastics, ballet, and cheerleading. Sadly though, at age 40, I must spectate from a great distance now.
People assume - people are ABSOLUTELY DETERMINED to assume, that my interest is prurient.

-And so it must be, TO A DEGREE…
I like gymnastics, ballet, and cheerleading so much because it unites physicality and art in the human body.
In the same way, btw, I’m a big fan of milatary close order drill and linear tactics ; the same sort of art in masculine form. Indeed, I became a revolutionary war British soldier reinnactor for many years so that I could march and drill. I later gave it up because I wanted to spend my weekends marching and drilling, not socializing, and the later was the priority , not the former.

Online, though not on this forum obviously, I habitually represent myself as female , because men treat you better, and if you are overtly friendly to women they do not automatically assume… what they invariably assume.
That particular assumption has long since driven me up the wall in real life.
The self-flattery implied in that assumption, the lack of genuine credit extended to me implied in that assumption - and me a 40 year celibate -
It’s a welcome break from the same old, same old, same old %&*@ nonsense.

I really really like the Virgin Mary, Joan of Arc, Philomena, and Dymphna… NOT only because… but importantly because, I imagine them as pleasant, empathic, pretty… attractive…i.e. physically attractive…so I guess my liking for them is to be damned on that point.
The trouble is , in my case, bueaty, in any form, is invariably directly connected to eroticism.
To explain - maybe - ; Trees are pretty to me in the same way that women are, for the same reason, and provoking the same pleasurable reaction. So, the only way to create perfect fidelity and chastity , for me, would be to make the world over entire in ugliness, in the horrific.

Meanwhile, in practice, in daily life, I avoid women like the plague for the primary reason already indicated ; I avoid you because you think I am being nice to you because I want you, which is true, but ALSO isn’t true, you walking bag of venereal germs and snot. I might as well be a monk, except that I have no calling.

In sum, this whole area fascinates me , but I understand it NOT AT ALL. I know of no term or definition that describes my experience, that describes me.

 

[newbetx]

Theology of the body touches on it very briefly. There are a few other ‘answers’ sites that give the same thing. The logic is, 1) it’s a birth defect 2.) Birth defects should be fixed if possible.

The problem is the aftermath of the fixing. Unfortunately the links I found with google aren’t coming up anymore, that recent case of the transsexual woman suing the catholic hospital is clogging my search results. I’ll see if I can’t find it today after work.

Hi, Pathia! How are you these days?

I’ve been giving this subject some thought since the last thread discussion. You state that TOB addresses this. What source? I haven’t heard it yet in the things I’ve read or listened to. I’d like to investigate. My impression is that TOB would say that our bodies are good, even if they exhibit characteristics that are out of the ordinary.

My personal opinion at this time is “you are what you are.” After all, God created the process that makes us what we are. “He made them male and female” is likely still correct although not as clear at birth as it might be as one grows older. And apparently that is an issue with our current land laws and considerations about what is a “birth defect” and when one must be declared male or female. So I guess we are making mistakes when we try to “correct” the body parts God gave us at birth. Eventually, one can determine one’s sex even though there may not be the typical distribution of “parts”. While the parents may be trying to make their children “accepatible”, society really needs to step up the proper understanding of this condition.

Does that make any sense? I hope in my ignorace I wasn’t offensive.

 

[pathia]

Hi, Pathia! How are you these days?

I’ve been giving this subject some thought since the last thread discussion. You state that TOB addresses this. What source? I haven’t heard it yet in the things I’ve read or listened to. I’d like to investigate. My impression is that TOB would say that our bodies are good, even if they exhibit characteristics that are out of the ordinary.

My personal opinion at this time is “you are what you are.” After all, God created the process that makes us what we are. “He made them male and female” is likely still correct although not as clear at birth as it might be as one grows older. And apparently that is an issue with our current land laws and considerations about what is a “birth defect” and when one must be declared male or female. So I guess we are making mistakes when we try to “correct” the body parts God gave us at birth. Eventually, one can determine one’s sex even though there may not be the typical distribution of “parts”. While the parents may be trying to make their children “accepatible”, society really needs to step up the proper understanding of this condition.

Does that make any sense? I hope in my ignorace I wasn’t offensive.

That is exactly what the intersex movement wants. There is no push to raise children genderless (There is in the GLBT movement, which is separate). The idea is to leave the child INTACT and not rush to surgery, but you DO assign a gender. This way, if the child does end up identifying opposite of what you raised them as, the child can make the informed choice after consulting with God, Family and medical doctors.

Right now the method of choice is to chop the child up and assign it one way or another within the first year of life. This leaves lifelong scars and often completely removes all capability of sexual pleasure, even if the organs are functional the nerve damage is usually complete. This is my case, physically speaking I could function, but I am a void when it comes to nerves, I am not much better off than a paralzyed person, there is simply no feeling down there, which is problematic in many ways. I have reoccurring kidney stones, but I can’t feel the pain down there, I have no way of telling. It’s not just sex, but my very health that has been damaged.

 

[Stev]

I am a intersexual, I was born with complete male genitalia but mother nature gave me an outward appearance as female. I was born in 1956, the medical community sent me home and I was raised as a female. I think God is a spirit, I don’t think there will be male or female in heaven. I except the fact that I was born abnormal with a birth defect. Just like other people who are born with different kinds of physical defects. Being born intersex helped me to understand who God really is, and that God loves all his people the same regardless of gender. I know we are earthly now, and we must reproduce as a human race, and we all have our proper gifts. We should never put sex above humanity. Jesus told us in his own words that there is neither male or female in heaven, we as like the angels. I believe we are all equal as humans in God’s eyes. We are all one big happy family. That makes us all catholic, truely meaning one church. You can read my book Looking Beyond the Mountains it tells all about my personal struggle overcoming a genital birth defect.

Thanks for sharing

Steven

 

[quixote1974]

First of all, the science is complicated, but I think on a genetic level, you are either male or female, you either have the SRY gene on a sex chromosome which determines male development or not. However, just because you are genetically male does not mean that you are phenotypically so (look and function like a male). Which is metaphysically prior? The genetic material, the anatomical endpoint structure, the function, or the person? Can the person be in any sense be said to have sexual difference if the rest of his biology suggests ambivalence?

I guess there are at least three ways one could conceive of the phenomenon of intersexuality. One, as a developmental defect in which one has material ambguity but at a personal level is either male or female. In this point of view, intersexuality would be like mental retardation or intellectual disability. One would not be any less human in either case. One interesting note though is that in mental retardation, one still has intelligence, though less of it, whereas in intersexuality, one appears to have lost dimorphic sexual difference altogether.

A second way of conceiving intersexuality is the situation in some cultures in which “third gender” individuals exist and are somewhat accepted as a gender class, but in a way are outcast from society, they live on their own at the fringes. Take the Indian hijra for example. The problem with this approach is that the vast majority of mankind are male or female. One may face the problem of alienating oneself from the rhthym of family life and society, not because of discrimination or intolerance per se, but because one’s existence is so radically different, being an extraordinary “third way,” it cannot participate in the duality of unity that characterizes ordinary sexual difference.

A third way of conceiving intersexuality is to get rid of sexual dual complementarity altogether and redefine sexuality as existing on a continuum. This would pose a problem to those who identify themselves as heterosexual and most of society, though with increasing emphasis on the value of tolerance one might tolerate this reconfiguration as one might hold that males and females exist far enough on the spectrum that the difference is a mere philosophical and metaphysical distinction. The problem with the continuum view is that it makes too much of the exceptions and ignores the point behind sexual difference, it is for the sake of procreation and reproduction.

Finally I would like to add that I believe that your approach to pseudohermaphroditism is a humane one. The thing with our sexuality is that I think Catholics believe that it is not something we choose. IT is not simply our biology. It is what God gives to us. Sexuality is a gift from God. It is sad when there seems to be something not right, atypical about this gift. I’d rather say that God gave you an extraordinary gift; an incredible burden but means to sanctification and sacrifice back to God. I’m sorry that I cannot understand the depths of your situation, to call it extraodrinary, and an opportunity for sacrifice may seem insensitive. Sorry about that–but it is at the heart of Christianity to see suffering as redemptive. The sexuality God gave you should not be determined by a doctor, parent or any other human being. I would also add that it should not be determined by you alone. Rather, one should allow the child to grow and develop such that when the time comes, the child can discern the nature of the gift of sexuality that God has given.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

First of all, the science is complicated, but I think on a genetic level, you are either male or female, you either have the SRY gene on a sex chromosome which determines male development or not. However, just because you are genetically male does not mean that you are phenotypically so (look and function like a male). Which is metaphysically prior? The genetic material, the anatomical endpoint structure, the function, or the person? Can the person be in any sense be said to have sexual difference if the rest of his biology suggests ambivalence?

It goes well beyond ambivalence:

A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis.

• J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Jan;93(1):182-9

Worse, some Intersexed people are dichogamous - they appear to be one sex at birth, then their appearance changes to that of the other sex later.

Individuals with 5alpha-reductase-2 deficiency (5alpha-RD-2) and 17beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-3 deficiency (17beta-HSD-3) are often raised as girls. Over the past number of years, this policy has been challenged because many individuals with these conditions develop a male gender identity and make a gender role change after puberty
…
Gender role changes were reported in 56-63% of cases with 5alpha-RD-2 and 39-64% of cases with 17beta-HSD-3 who were raised as girls. The changes were usually made in adolescence and early adulthood. In these two syndromes, the degree of external genital masculinization at birth does not seem to be related to gender role changes in a systematic way.

• Gender change in 46,XY persons with 5alpha-reductase-2 deficiency and 17beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-3 deficiency. by Cohen-Ketternis

The word “Intersex” covers quite literally hundreds of completely different and un-related conditions. All it means is someone whose biology doesn’t completely match either a male or female stereotype, from whatever cause. Rather than generalising about “intersexuality”, one must really look at CAI syndrome, and CAH syndrome, and Kallman sydrome, and Klinefelter Syndrome, Kennedy Syndrome, De La Chapelle Syndrome, and so on and so on.

Approximately 90% of such people identify as either males with anomalies, or females with anomalies. About 10% of them though identify as neither. Many don’t identify as female - they just know they’re not male. And the reverse.

One thing that does cause Intersexed people considerable distress. They’ve learnt never, ever, to ask a priest or bishop for advice. Because they’re medically ignorant, and two priests will give completely different and diametrically opposed views, with threats of eternal damnation if their commands are not followed.

For example, according to the Catholic Church in the UK, I’m male, and called on to marry a woman. According to the Catholic Church in Australia, female, and called on to marry a man. Both agree though that if I don’t accept what they say, I’m in a state of sin. This is about all they can agree on. That and that my own views on the matter are deemed completely immaterial, and no doubt in error, no matter what they may be.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

The Pope on Intersex:

Poiché la fede nel Creatore è una parte essenziale del Credo cristiano, la Chiesa non può e non deve limitarsi a trasmettere ai suoi fedeli soltanto il messaggio della salvezza.
As the faith in the Creator is an essential part of the Christian Creed, the Church can not and should not be confined to convey to his people only the message of salvation.
Essa ha una responsabilità per il creato e deve far valere questa responsabilità anche in pubblico.
It has a responsibility for creation and must rely on this responsibility even in public.
E facendolo deve difendere non solo la terra, l’acqua el’aria come doni della creazione appartenenti a tutti.
And he must defend not only the land, water and air as gifts of creation belong to everyone.
Deve proteggere anche l’uomo contro la distruzione di se stesso.
It must also protect humans against the destruction of himself.
È necessario che ci sia qualcosa come una ecologia dell’uomo, intesa nel senso giusto.
It is necessary that there is something like an ecology of man, understood in the right direction.
Non è una metafisica superata, se la Chiesa parla della natura dell’essere umano come uomo e donna e chiede che quest’ordine della creazione venga rispettato.
It is not a metaphysical exceeded, if the Church speaks of the nature of man as man and woman, and calls for the creation of this order is respected.
Qui si tratta di fatto della fede nel Creatore e dell’ascolto del linguaggio della creazione, il cui disprezzo sarebbe un’autodistruzione dell’uomo e quindi una distruzione dell’opera stessa di Dio. Ciò che spesso viene espresso ed inteso con il termine " gender ", si risolve in definitiva nella autoemancipazione dell’uomo dal creato e dal Creatore.
This is in fact of faith in the Creator, given the language of creation, which would be self-contempt and then destruction of the work of God This is often expressed and understood by the term " gender ", is resolved finally in the creation of self-empowerment and the Creator.
L’uomo vuole farsi da solo e disporre sempre ed esclusivamente da solo ciò che lo riguarda.
The man wants to be alone and have always and exclusively alone what he is concerned.
Ma in questo modo vive contro la verità, vive contro lo Spirito creatore.
But living in this way against the truth, lives against the Creator Spirit.

It’s worth noting that the Holy Father was not speaking ex Cathedra at the time.

For other translations, see
Vatican Press Release
National Catholic Reporter

The pope was not talking about “transgender” or even “gender theory”. He was talking about the concept that gender is distinct from physical sex. He denied this concept as merely an artifact of Man’s Pride (for want of a better term), the same urge that led to the Tower of Babel.

Theologically speaking - and how else could the Pope speak, he professes that there are men, and women. Nothing else. Men are attracted to women, and women to men. That is the natural order of things. There is no “gender”, only sex.

He states that all other things that appear to contradict a strict Male/Female binary, such as Homosexuality, or “women born in a man’s body”, “post-operative transsexuals” or any body not obviously male or obviously female, are all against the natural order of Creation, and dangerous. All such are artefacts of Human origin, perfect Divine creations spoilt by Man. Intersexed people may be explained away as the result of Man’s tampering with the environment, with chemical and possibly spiritual pollution.

They can only be described in a purely ecological sense as human-created vermin, though that word in merely implied, not stated. Something undesirable and dangerous to the Ecology, the product of Humanity’s prideful nature in wishing to be in sole and exclusive control of his own destiny. He does not go so far as to say that such (purely ecologically speaking, no pejorative meaning is implied) “vermin” should be exterminated, he leaves the question of what to do with them open. He merely states that they are a danger to all Humanity, and against the Natural order as ordained by God.

Who knew I was so dangerous for existing?

 

[quixote1974]

Hi Zoe:

First of all, thanks for responding. I am sorry that you have had the experience of feeling that the Church regards you as “vermin,” alienated from the rest of us who have no need to question our identity as being male and female. Your existence is not in any way “dangerous,” as a human being, you are without doubt made in the image and likeness of God, and as such, worthy of a dignity that the we should all affirm. I value your experience and your insight, and I am sorry if you have had to suffer because of your condition.

You are right that the term “intersexuality” does not capture the condition well of being neither male nor female in an unambiguous way. I recognize the complexity of the conditions involved in this condition of indeterminate sexual difference. I guess I ask - why do words fail us when describing your condition? Is it because we do not know enough scientifically? Is it societal unease? Is there something so fundamental about the dimorphic character of sexual difference that a deviation from this thus becomes even more perplexing?

Also you stated that you identify yourself as male? If you would like to share, why? Or why does someone with an indeterminate sexual difference identify with either male or female at all?

I looked up the link you mentioned regarding Pope Benedict’s speech–I did not see the excerpt regarding his discussion of gender. I agree as you acknowledge that we can’t draw any definitive conclusions from what the Pope said, in fact, I’m not sure why you took this particular speech as an example of what the church has said about indeterminate human sexuality. Does anyone know if the Church has produced any documents on human “hermaphoditism?”