To open the discussion (not that you have taken any position) . . .
There's been a practice when a hermaprohodite is born, which, like redheadedness, is nearly 2% of the time, that the parents are pulled aside and counseled to choose a gender, which will often be female, and a "sex change" operation is then performed on the infant. That does not guarantee that the baby will not grow to identify as the "unchosen" gender, something these parents then struggle with.
But part of the idea has been that if one or the other is not chosen, it will not bode well socially for the growing child. There's a question now as to whether we have been doing the right thing, making a choice, performing an operation.
This points to the idea too, that even if born with only one set of genitals, the identification may go the other way. For instance, I come from a same sex family, having three grandmothers and one grandfather. Did my father's two mothers both identify as women? Possibly and seems so, even if one were butch. Ideas about someone being butch or even lesbian may never occur to a grandchild. They are just people. We never even had rainbow flags. It just was the way we were, which was okay with us.
Here you link to a conversation where someone who identifies as a woman who is physically male or vice versa, or is or was a hermaphrodite, and/or may "identify" somewhere on a scale or graph from male to female -- is having a difficult time explaining why they use such language, or why they need to use the language this way. Maybe the only way to explain it to someone so set in devil's advocacy, is for him or her to father a hermaphrodite or just a baby destined for the LGBTQ "community" (as it were).
Hi Frank,
ReplyDeleteTo open the discussion (not that you have taken any position) . . .
There's been a practice when a hermaprohodite is born, which, like redheadedness, is nearly 2% of the time, that the parents are pulled aside and counseled to choose a gender, which will often be female, and a "sex change" operation is then performed on the infant. That does not guarantee that the baby will not grow to identify as the "unchosen" gender, something these parents then struggle with.
But part of the idea has been that if one or the other is not chosen, it will not bode well socially for the growing child. There's a question now as to whether we have been doing the right thing, making a choice, performing an operation.
This points to the idea too, that even if born with only one set of genitals, the identification may go the other way. For instance, I come from a same sex family, having three grandmothers and one grandfather. Did my father's two mothers both identify as women? Possibly and seems so, even if one were butch. Ideas about someone being butch or even lesbian may never occur to a grandchild. They are just people. We never even had rainbow flags. It just was the way we were, which was okay with us.
Here you link to a conversation where someone who identifies as a woman who is physically male or vice versa, or is or was a hermaphrodite, and/or may "identify" somewhere on a scale or graph from male to female -- is having a difficult time explaining why they use such language, or why they need to use the language this way. Maybe the only way to explain it to someone so set in devil's advocacy, is for him or her to father a hermaphrodite or just a baby destined for the LGBTQ "community" (as it were).