amra@ihuxj.UUCP (Steven L. Aldrich) (06/14/84)
Here is one additional reply which didn't reach me in time
to be included in my follow-up articles yesterday (06-12-84).
My comments appear where indicated (by "SLA: " ).
Happy Reading........
*************************************************************
From uucp Wed Jun 13 12:58 EDT 1984
>From rlr Wed Jun 13 12:53 EDT 1984 remote from pyuxn
To: ihuxj!amra
Subject: Re: Hermaphroditism: Even More Replies (No Questions Though) LONG!
In-reply-to: your article <552@ihuxj.UUCP>
My contributions to the discussion were absent from both your summaries. Was
this an omission, or did you think I had nothing to say? In any case, here
is a copy of my article, in case it never got to you:
--------------------------------
***********************************************************
SLA: I never saw this,thanks for re-sending it!
*************************************************************
840608 - <733@pyuxn.UUCP>
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.social,net.philosophy,net.motss
Subject: Re: hermaphroditism (labelling sex roles)
References: <532@ihuxj.UUCP>
> Here's a topic I haven't seen on the net and thought
> might be of interest to some of you. Namely, the subject
> of hermaphroditism and its social/moral/religious implications.
> Although hermaphrodites makes up only a small percentage of
> the worlds population, their existance seems to raise some
> interesting dilemas to some of our cultural definitions of
> sexuality in general and sociologic norms of interactions
> between individuals in society.
A very small percentage indeed. To my knowledge there are NO known true human
hermaphrodites. A true hermaphrodite would have reproductive organs (a
complete set!) appropriate to both the male and female sex (well, two
complete sets...). Effectively this really means having both testes and
ovaries. Medical science has never found an actual human hermaphrodite by
these standards. [Transsexuals don't count; they have reached their state
through a combination of chemical alteration through hormones and surgery
to remove and/or alter external genitalia; pre-operative transsexuals rarely
have *any* physical manifestations of the "hidden" gender, let alone an
additional set of reproductive organs; besides, *after* a sex-change
operation, transsexuals have NO reproductive organs, making them TWO complete
sets shy of the amount necessary for hermaphroditism.] If anyone has evidence
that I am wrong, please post it to the net.
> If two hermaphrodites were to have a sexual relationship,
> would they be considered to be homosexual heterosexual or
> androgynous?
If you must put a label on it, call it "wiztuckershlutzgangertangalutensexual".
If they existed, and if they decided to have a sexual relationship, why must
the rest of the human race put a label on it? So that someone can go back to
the Bible and interpret an obscure passage to make it a sin??? So that someone
can pass a law against it??? So that someone can write a psychology thesis on
the subject??? How about calling it "new wave"; that's a good term that gets
bandied about. Or ...
Why is there a need at all to assign labels to sexual lifestyles and sex roles,
and to designate who the appropriate people (and sexes) should be to take on
those lifestyles and roles? Must there be a "husband" and "wife" in every
relationship, according to "standard" definitions of those terms? And must
it be the man who is the "husband" and the woman who is the "wife"? How can
this thinking apply in homosexual relationships among both sexes, or even in
the hypothetical two hermaphrodite relationship? Does it matter?
I digress.
*******************************************************************
SLA: This was (is) the exact line of reasoning I was trying express.
I AGREE with you 100% on the above. I had hoped to get some people,
not yourself, to re-evaluate their pre-concieved, prejudiced
attitudes to various groups (ig. Homo-sexuals, Trans-sexuals, Bi-
Sexuals, Whatever...) and see what would happen.
I have NO animosity towards these groups, and don't get HUNG-UP
with labels either. In my view, a person's sexuality (gender-
identity) is their own business. Gender identities are neither
GOOD nor BAD, they JUST ARE. It all depends on the individual
choices we ALL make whether we identify with one (or more) group(s)
as opposed to others. There are no good or bad choices.
****************************************************************
> What would be the social/moral/religious implications...
The most important implication in all of this speculation about hermaphroditism
is that all coded forms asking for your sex would have to add another box. And
every computer program including a field for sex would have to be re-written.
(How many of you use a binary boolean for such a field? It might be easier to
re-build all the hardware in the world with trinary logic. :-)
--
**************************************************************
SLA: AGREED!!
********************************************************
WHAT IS YOUR NAME? Rich Rosen
WHAT IS YOUR NET ADDRESS? pyuxn!rlr
WHAT IS THE CAPITAL OF ASSYRIA? I don't know that ... ARGHHHHHHHH!
-----------------------------------
Others have posted evidence of rare human hermaphrodites, but it was not clear
whether any were true hermaphrodites (with truly *functioning* sets of
reproductive organs for both sexes). It was not clear from your original
article whether you thought that actual human hermaphroditism was a reality or
if you thought the topic was ripe for discussion, especially as a springboard
to other relevant issues. I think some of the issues I raised in the middle
section (on why we label and proscribe sex roles) are important enough to
generate discussion. If my article never reached your site, it probably
missed a few others, so I would appreciate your posting it (or any subsections
that you find relevant) in an amended summary or whatever if appropriate.
Also your comments and those of anyone else getting to read it would be
greatly appreciated. (The last section may be worth ignoring if you're
looking for real content as opposed to frivolousness.) Thank you.
----------
"Submitted for your approval..." Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
****************************************************************
SLA: I thought it was ripe for discussion, I was posing HYPOTHETICAL
SITUATIONS to stimulate this discussion. The "springboard" issues
also came into play. I am sick and tired of reading about the
sinfulness/immorality/etc. of certain (if not MOST) sexual activities.
**********************************************************
I hope this has been enlightening in some respect as to my motives
for posting on this topic. Please feel free to send your views,
always glad to hear from others.
Steve Aldrich
ihnp4!ihuxj!amra