Post by ++This form of mutilation is still performed in the US. A rational
approach would be the male child, or even teh intersexed child, to
grow up a while and eventually make the decision for themselves.
However, people are such morons that they *believe* (and to hell with
the facts) that, rather than having a boy go through life with a small
peins, it's better to mutilate the child, despite the high odds that
the child will be miserable to the point of becoming suicidal, or
that the child will grow up to be sexually dysfunctional or
nonfunctional. IOW, f***the consequences for the individual - these
idiots just want the neighbors to think that everything is hunky-dory.
Now, add to all of that, the fact that states such as Texas define you
on th ebasis of your chromosomes. SO, even tho' a person's parents
and the medical establishment mutilated the person in infancy, and
forced him to be raised as a her - the State, on th ebasis of the
average person's idiocy and prejudice, declares this person to be a
male, who cannot marry a man or receive any benefits. And yet, this
same person is denied the right to marry a woman. IOW, through the
fault of other people, the person is condemend to live in at best
limbo, and very often, hell.
The same is true of males born with something called "androgen
insensitivity". Their cells cannot process testosterone, period.
They are born looking like females, develop as females, have the same
sort of physical capabilities as females (remember, no testosterone is
processed), and grow up thinking of themselves as female and so onj.
But oh no, their chromosomes define them, so again, thanks to the
ignorant prejudice of the average person, they, too, are condemned to
limbo.
Also condemned is anyone who actually cares, even a little, about the
suffering of those who don't fit into the Holy And Sacrosanct Fat
Belly Of The Bell Curve.
It is not as "black OR white" as the average person likes to insist.
Of course, I keep forgetting, silly me!, that the average person also
just doesn't give a shit about the conditions of anyone who is
"different". Which, of course, is how we ended up with Irish
Protestants and Irish Catholics slaughtering one another for so many
years, and how todays religious wars are so glibly pursued - it's all
the emphasis upon "difference", which results in exclusion.
What most people see first, and what most only care about, is that
someone else isn't a carbon-copy of themselves.
God - or, more accurately, religion and ploitics - forbid that the
first thing one sees is the *humanity* of another person.
That show was about about Chimerism.
WHat happens sometimes is tat twins become not merely cojoined, but
one actualyl absorbs the other, retaining much of the cell structure
from the absorbed twin.
Hmm, I guess we all saw the show on intersexed individuals on PBS....
Um, no, it's jsut that my life has put me into places where I learned new
things that I integrated with my scientific background, and also, which
taught me to have both more compassion, and to be more open-minded than I
was raised to be. ((I was raised by a woman who used to say that "Hitler
had the right idea", so it's been quite an interesting journey to get away
from that.))
Post by ++When I first saw your above response to a thread I have obviously not
been following, I assumed the mutilation was circumcision.
Well, personally, I am not a proponent of that, either. I know it's part
of the Jewish faith, but aside from that ritual, IMO it's primarily done so
that motehrs don't have to bother with the "icky stuff" of teaching their
male children how to wash properly.
Post by ++I
literally had to fight off several rounds of "Are you sure you don't
want us to perform this lucrative unnecessary surgery on your new born
boy infant" for three births in three different hospitals in three
different states despite my preparing two hospitals in advance of the
births that I didn't even want to be informed of the option much less
strong armed about allowing it to be performed.
Yup. "Lucrative" is an important factor. The other factor is the "jump
off th ebridge" syndrome ((you know how it goes - I think most parents have
at one time or another said to their kids, "And if everyone else jumpted
off a bridge, would you jump, too?"))
IMO, startinig off one's life by having one's most sensitive parts carved
up (and they don't use anaesthetic, IIRC) is *not* a good way to start life
=:-o !
And good for you for resisting that nonsense!
Post by ++But you are talking about something far worse, i.e. unnecessary
surgery on the people we used to call hermaphrodites and now call
intersexed for some PC, not quite sure, reason.
Even worse - it was long done (and is still done as far as I know) on
babies deemed to have a "micropenis" - IOW, otherwise nromal, helathy male
infants who have a penis that is "too small". Although the intersexed
situation is as described.
Oh, almost forgot - the term "intersexed" is merely considered to be more
medically accurate.
Post by ++Maybe there should
just be a rule that no unnecessary (to saving life) surgery be done on
any infant. Let's give babies a break and not cause them pain. Let's
make a reasoned judgment, outside the hospital, if we can, that
whatever we are going to do to the infants outside of sustaining their
lives, should be done, if we can, when the infant her/himself can take
part in the decision.
Exactly. IMO, a lot fo this has been and is done merely because the
parents/family don't want to have to deal with "awkward" issues - IOW, it's
for their convenience. IMO, that is the most despicable part.
Post by ++There is, however, the psychological trauma
issue, which is usually related to someone having a very poor idea of
humanity and loving kindness.
You mean, trauma for the child growing up different...? Sorry, I'm not
sure what you specifically mean...
Post by ++I remember having a conversation with one intersexed person I grew up
with. The person wanted to know which sex I thought s/he was, mostly.
My answer then is I suppose what my answer would be today. " It's
really not important. It's kind of cool you have the ability to
choose. There are advantages to each. Which do you feel you are?"
Most people are not nearly as open-minded as you. Which is sad. These
conditions are rare, but it's sad that most people are so blinded to the
fundamental humanity of people with rare conditions.
It's better, to be sure, but when growing up, I can remeember that my
friend was terrified of anyone finding out about her diabetes, because at
that time, diabetes and epilepsy were commonly considered to be similar to
leprosy, i.e. something other kids could "catch". And people treated such
kids cruelly.
Post by ++Ever since then, I have pondered what he taught, that he be as he
wished to be, a somewhat impotent male. As he said then, more or less
from memory "It is somewhat easy to be a celibate male as long as I
don't chose the difficult path of being a homosexual. It is equally
easy to be the not so feminine female, able to insist on a decent
career and not to have to worry about dating and relationships getting
in the way. I would have to forgo motherhood without adoption in any
case. I could adopt in either case. But I have to chose to be male,
in my case, because I begin to take on some secondary characteristics,
especially facial hair, that in America are not so common if they are
so in Italy. And I will make a higher income and have an easier path
in academics."
This is a bit of a tangent, but in the US, at least from what I've heard
and seen, it's considered to be a form of perversion to not have a sex
drive! Peopel who are asexual are condemned all the way around - the
religiosos insst that we all exist basically to create more sould for this
or that religion, and from the left, they get condemned because "people are
sexual so ya gotta be a sick to not have a sex drive".
I'ts just more simplistic opinion/belief (I won't dignify it by calling it
"thinking").
Biologically, there are a few species of fish and amphibians which can
change sex depending upon the distribution of the breeding population -
IOW, if the population of adults is all, or nearly all, female, some
individuals will change to male.
In crocodiles (and I think alligators aas well), the sex of the hatchlings
is determined by the prevailing temperature in the nest.
Nature like to play around a lot ;) It's humans who insist upon rigid
oversimplification.
But to return to what you related above, that one paragraph is reveals many
of the prejudices and injustices not only within our culture, but within so
much of human culture in general. Anything that falls outside the
proverbial "fat belly of the bell curve" (IOW, outside of hte statistical
average) is most typically looked upon with suspicion, considered to be a
disease state or, where beleif strongly supercedes rtionality, as "evil".
Historically, for example, the "witches" burned at the stake by "good
Chtristians" very often were women who knew about healing herbs - that was,
however, "old knowledge", not taught by the Church, and was therefore
condemend by, and to the detriment of, the very people who might have
benefitted from that knowledge.
Post by ++Since that time, I have met trangendered people who had heavy burdens
to carry over their decisions to be one gender or another. Some lost
important relationships in the process.
It's something like the "loving families" who literaly throw their children
out onto teh streets if the chuildren confess to being gay. These people
are incapable of compassion. Which is interesting, given that almost all
religions are suppsoedly based upon the teachings of holy men who placed
much emphasis upon compassion. But I digress...
Post by ++Others maintained them. I
have met many many more people who I would characterize as
androgynous, intentionally or unintentionally, but not having any
particular intersexual characteristics. And if there is a biological
difference between males and females, perhaps there is some special
gift of intelligence or understanding that intersexual people have to
provide society .
In several of the Native American cultures, they were considered to be
great Shamans because, by being links between the human male and the human
female, they were by extension considered to therefore also be links
between the male and female spirits/spirit-animals/gods.
Google "winkte" for more info, if you are interested. I came across that
because one of my non-sceintific interests is in various aspects of
Spirituality. ((Too many interests, never enough time...one lifetime is
definitely not enough!))
This is going a bit further afield, but you might also be interested in the
ancient Celtic ideas concernign triplicities - most Western thought is
based upon Roman idea, which saw things in terms of opposites/dualities,
and to the military victors go not only the spoils, but also, the
prevailing culture.
Here is a workable Google link:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Celtic+triplicities+spiritual
So, where for example "Western" though sees only Day Versus Night, more
ancient theologies saw Day, Night, and Twilight/Dawn. IOW the proverbial
"shades of grey" as opposed to the simplistic "black versus white".
And, as much as poeple insist otherwise, Nature - including biology - is
not merely "black versus white".
The thing is that this most basic of viewpoints heavily influences all
otehr aspects of thought and spirituality - and therefore, culture. For
example, does one follow the letter of the law, or the spirit of the law?
Does one take a holy book as an absolute or as a parable? Generalyl,
epople pick and choose when to operate in a black-versus-white manner or a
shades-of-grey manner, and that is part of what causes so very much
trouble, because the inevitable result is hypocrisy.
But that is a separate thesis, and I've probably yammered too much
already...
Post by ++Back to ignoring thread.....
Heh. Sometimes one's sanity can only be maintained by ignoring things.
Which is probl why I've so little sanity left <g!>