Resolving an intersex condition

[HomeschoolDad]

This said, though, if an intersex person cannot consummate in a normal manner, sadly, they could not marry in the Church.

My common sense tells me yes. I doubt it has ever come up at an official level, as this condition hasn’t been well-known for that long. Before the advent of DNA testing and other advanced medical procedures and knowledge (ultrasound, etc.), they would have just been assumed to be women who were sterile, and for some reason never started having menstrual periods. Some of these women I’ve seen online have been very striking-looking and not in the least bit masculine.

I seriously have to doubt that the Church would ever take the position of “DNA determines gender regardless of any appearances to the contrary”. The Church has enough problems without going to the cross over something that was never even known to be an issue until recent times. I would say that “male and female He created them” would allow appearance, anatomy and self-perception to trump DNA. As someone else noted above, AIS women have never been influenced by androgen (because their system is insensitive to it), so chances are they have never “felt” anything other than female. I once heard a woman on a TV show, a very nice-looking young woman, say “I don’t have periods”, and I wonder if she was AIS.

 

[Rau]

I think the complaint was that “she’s really a guy”. She regards herself as a woman, she didn’t know about the internal testes until she was examined, and she is physically a woman even though she does, admittedly, look pretty mannish. FWIW, she is a lesbian, but so are many women with XX chromosomes.

Be that as it may, I understand she was required to undergo some tests to discover whether she was properly participating in sporting contests designated for women. It seems to me that may be necessary on occasions, unless the assertion or choice of the sportsperson is all that matters.

 

[Rau]

Yes it is strictly biology.

What biology are you referring to a Thistle? Chromosomes?

 

[thistle]

What biology are you referring to a Thistle? Chromosomes?

You are for life what you are biologically born.

It does not matter what a person thinks, feels, says, how they dress, speak, what drugs they may take or surgery they have done, someone born a male is always a male. Someone born a female is always a female.

 

[Rau]

You are for life what you are biologically born.

It does not matter what a person thinks, feels, says, how they dress, speak, what drugs they may take or surgery they have done, someone born a male is always a male. Someone born a female is always a female.

Understood. But what definition of male and female do you rely on? Chromosomes ?

 

[OraLabora]

someone born a male is always a male. Someone born a female is always a female.

Some are born both.

Whatever the case, it would be very difficult to make an AIS woman conform to her genetic reality.

Moreover, biology is more than just genetics. Phenotype is biological as well. In AIS women, the phenotype is a biological response to a genetic inability to process the main hormone generated by their genetic biology.

And therein lies the crux of my issue with the Church’s teaching on gender. It’s reductive, simplistic and ignores the biological complexities that occur naturally.

 

[Aquinas11]

This is the difficult part about defining what is a man and a woman.

If it’s strictly biology, intersex people are suddenly expected to live their lives as the opposite gender they’ve known.

Biology has anomalies and anomalies don’t change general biological definitions. Some people are born without feet. Some people born with 12 fingers and toes. But in biology class we still teach humans have 2 feet, 10 fingers, 10 toes. This is just another example of one more of long list anomalies we readily accept that don’t affect general biological definitions

 

[Rau]

Biology has anomalies and anomalies don’t change general biological definitions.

What is your definition of male and female?

 

[Aquinas11]

There is no “your definition” but see my post above, the definition of male and female excludes anomalies like intersex. If it didn’t we couldn’t define how many fingers humans have or how many feet humans have

 

[Rau]

the definition of male and female excludes anomalies like intersex.

This may be a point that @Thistle is not grasping.

 

[OraLabora]

There is no “your definition” but see my post above, the definition of male and female excludes anomalies like intersex.

That’s the problem with the “male and female He created them” statement used by some people in the Church to exclude the transgendered. It ends up reducing the intersexed (and transgendered, which may end up being just a form of intersex) to an anomaly, people that somehow “don’t fit the mold”. And that robs them of their inherent dignity because gender is such an important piece of someone’s identity. You can’t equate that to someone being born with too many or too few digits. Being born with too many or too few digits does not change or confuse a person’s identity.

So reducing gender to a simple genetic exercise, without recognizing phenotype at odds with genetics, without recognizing that the variances such are intersex and transgenderism are perfectly natural occurrences, and without affording the affected person the opportunity to live out their identity fully and freely, reduces the person to simply an anomaly, a freak of sorts. And that’s reprehensible and totally at odds with the Gospel message.

 

[Aquinas11]

people that somehow “don’t fit the mold”. And that robs them of their inherent dignity

You said that not me. We’re talking about a biological definition of male and female, not inherent human dignity.

You can’t equate that to someone being born with 11 fingers or toes

So people born 11 fingers/toes are an anomaly to humans defined as 10 fingers and doesn’t affect their inherent human dignity yet if intersex are anomaly to definition of male/female it would affect their inherent dignity? Seems like intersex are enjoying preferential treatment over people with other birth anomalies.

 

[Lea101]

I am on the biological side (intersex conditions seem to indicate that there was supposed to be a certain gender, but something abnormal happened), but i don’t think that’s a good enough conclusion for the question OP asked. Hence my post.

Would someone with the condition have to live life as a man now, since she was supposed to be a male?

the definition of male and female excludes anomalies like intersex

This may be fine in a secular context, but where does this leave the intersex individual in terms of theology. Male and female he made them. Not 10 fingers and 4 limbs. When we’re talking about theology behind something, there’s no room to exclude people.

The church teaches that there is a deeper meaning behind gender. Look at the TOB. Unlike other birth deformities, gender holds a significant place in our self concept as well as in our church.

So what are they? Neither male or female? Female? Male?

 

[Aquinas11]

where does this leave the intersex individual in terms of theology.

Thread topic is about intersex in biological not theological context.

 

[Thorolfr]

So people born 11 fingers/toes are an anomaly to humans defined as 10 fingers and doesn’t affect their inherent human dignity yet if intersex are anomaly to definition of male/female it would affect their inherent dignity? Seems like intersex are enjoying preferential treatment over people with other birth anomalies.

Must we have a binary definition of gender where anything that is not one or the other is “abnormal” or somehow not “correct”? Perhaps gender can be seen as falling on a continuum where some people are a little of both. That’s how Kinsey saw sexual orientation rather than having a definition of sexuality that views heterosexuality as “normal” and everything else as “abnormal.” A lot of people with autism (as well as other people with neurodevelopmental issues such as those with ADHD) also don’t see themselves as “mentally ill.” Instead, they see themselves as “neurodivergent” or “neuroatypical” rather than “neurotypical.”

 

[Aquinas11]

Must we have a binary definition of gender where anything that is not one or the other is “abnormal” or somehow not “correct”?

I never said “abnormal” or not “correct”

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

Must we have a binary definition of gender where anything that is not one or the other is “abnormal” or somehow not “correct”?

I never said “abnormal” or not “correct”

Is the definition of the word “anomalous” substantially different from the word “abnormal”?

 

[Aquinas11]

Not playing the strawman game. If you’re going to misquote the post then not retract I’ll move on

 

[Thorolfr]

Not playing the strawman game. If you’re going to misquote the post then not retract I’ll move on

I wasn’t trying to misquote your post, only to understand what it is your saying. I guess I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make. Why should humans be “defined” as having ten fingers and being either “male” or “female” when we could have a broader definition?

 

[OraLabora]

So people born 11 fingers/toes are an anomaly to humans defined as 10 fingers and doesn’t affect their inherent human dignity yet if intersex are anomaly to definition of male/female it would affect their inherent dignity?

Apples and oranges. An extra digit is a minor cosmetic or functional defect. Being born intersex is deeply tied to one’s identity and affects the person’s ability to form relationships, especially romantic relationships, and to procreate. And the Church doesn’t even have a category to define them. It’s either man or woman, even when both/other apply. The doctrine has not caught up to the science.

Seems like intersex are enjoying preferential treatment over people with other birth anomalies.

Not at all. Not all anomalies are created equal. You’re comparing a minor functional/cosmetic anomaly to a major functional and identity anomaly. You might as well be comparing an extra finger to a major anomaly like Down’s syndrome or a congenital heart defect.

The treatment is not preferential, it is tied to the degree of anomaly.

Thread topic is about intersex in biological not theological context.

No it’s not. The OP clearly asked about the morality of certain treatments for people with AIS, an intersex condition. What he asked is clearly within the bounds of moral theology so Lea101’s question is completely appropriate and relevant to the OP’s question and what a moral course of treatment would be for such folks.