|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: sexual morality for the intersex
|
Haydee
Shipmate
# 14734
|
Posted
So, the Caster Semenya controversy got me thinking - a certain number of people are born intersex - with some of both male & female genetalia (as I uderstand it). Now, if you belive homosexuality is a sin, how do they avoid sin? Remain celebate? or does someone (the person themselves or a doctor) 'choose' their gender, and then they are allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender?
What are 'Biblical principles' if you're intersex?
Posts: 433 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
The Church of Scotland only started ordaining female elders in 1968. However, prior to that, we had an intersex elder (at least I assume he was intersex). Elizabeth Forbes-Semphill was raised as a girl, including being presented at court as a debutante, but after graduating in medicine increasingly lived as a man. Eventually, he changed his name to Ewan, married Isabella in 1952 and was ordained an elder in his local church. According to him, he had always been male, but was wrongly identified as female at birth. This sounds implausible - surely if it was a mistake at birth, it would have been realised before he reached adulthood? (In particular, before he found himself in a white silk frock curtseying to the monarch!)
Anyway, the church seemed remarkably unfazed about the whole thing, the local newspaper carried wedding photos without remark, Aberdeen University altered their records to describe him as "son of" instead of "daughter of" etc etc.
It would be nice to think the same situation could be treated with as little fuss today.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
In the case of Ewan/Elizabeth, I gather that it became increasingly obvious that something was amiss by the time the wretched then girl was a debutante ; and only the British upper classes could deal with it with such stiff-necked politeness that they all probably ignored the fact that Elizabeth was becoming increasingly mannish as time passed, until she finally bit the bullet and assumed manliness. I'll bet there was a right legal kerfuffle to have her gender re-assigned , and her name changed which lesser folk could not have afforded.
The whole intersex thing has bugger-all to do with "morality" since a lot more than appearance dictates gender identity (and I'm NOT talking gender dysphoria here).
The unhappy South African athlete whose situation has been recently splashed all over the gutter press clearly indentifies as female despite her muscular build, her hirsutism and her intra-abdominal) male gonads. She is for all intents and purposes female, and has been registered as such.
Perhaps the moral thing to do is for the rest of us not to speculate...
m
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
According to him, he had always been male, but was wrongly identified as female at birth. This sounds implausible - surely if it was a mistake at birth, it would have been realised before he reached adulthood? (In particular, before he found himself in a white silk frock curtseying to the monarch!)
Maybe not. Some people are born with such genital ambiguity that their genotypic gender may not be clear until well into puberty, if at all.
At the limits, gender can be a pretty flakey concept. As I see it, any human endeavour or institution -- athletics or religion or anything else -- that depends for proper function on being able to divide the human race unequivocally into `male' and `female' sections is just broken.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
multipara, there doesn't seem to have been any kerfuffle in re-assigning gender (though there has been a kerfuffle since over whether a precedent was set!)
It probably helped that Ewan came from a wealthy family; it probably helped even more that he was a well-respected local GP.
I don't know whether it was ignorance, or a 1950s reluctance to discuss such matters, but the whole transition from Elizabeth to Ewan, marriage to Isabella, and becoming an elder in the Church of Scotland, seem to have created few waves at the time.
It would be nice to think that the Church of Scotland would be so laid back today, but alas! I doubt it.
[ 16. September 2009, 09:10: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Sorry, double posting.
You can change your name for free with no legal fuss in Scotland, providing there is no intention to defraud, by simply using a "new" name for several years. Dr Forbes-Semphill put a notice in the local press saying that henceforth his name was "Ewan" and then used the new name.
Obviously, changing a gendered name is more likely to be open to challenge of "intention to defraud" but as Dr F-S was a local G.P, well known in the community, I doubt a challenge would have held.
It probably helped that he was "Dr E. Forbes-Semphill" both before and after.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
I'd not heard of the case before but here's the Wikipedia article.
Thurible
[link fixed]
[ 16. September 2009, 12:40: Message edited by: TonyK ]
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
NEQ, neither you nor I know how much kerfuffle was involved. I was born in 1952 and I wouldn't mind betting that it all happened behind closed doors and over a long period of time. Poor old Ewan/Elizabeth got a write-up somewhere or other when i was 18 or 19, which is how i recall the whole sorry affair. Like I said, being upper-class must have helped. Some poor prole in the same biological situation might have ended up as a freak in a sideshow in those cruel years-who knows?
m
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Indeed, I'm sure that his family status, plus being a G.P. helped enormously.
His family home is not terribly far from here, and I know people who lived here in 1952 - they say the gossip was primarily of the "how could such a mistake have been made?" variety and general sympathy.
Our local library has cuttings books - I was looking up the "F" one for the obituary of a "Farquharson" recently and came across the cutting of his wedding photo to Isabella - nothing in the cutting to suggest it wasn't just a run-of-the-mill wedding. Of course, there might have been comment elsewhere in the paper which didn't make it into the cuttings book, but it all seemed very normal - the usual stuff about the bride having her sister as bridesmaid blah, blah, blah.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
[link fixed]
Thank you - and sorry for not previewing...
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orlando098
Shipmate
# 14930
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
The Church of Scotland only started ordaining female elders in 1968. However, prior to that, we had an intersex elder (at least I assume he was intersex). Elizabeth Forbes-Semphill was raised as a girl, including being presented at court as a debutante, but after graduating in medicine increasingly lived as a man. Eventually, he changed his name to Ewan, married Isabella in 1952 and was ordained an elder in his local church. According to him, he had always been male, but was wrongly identified as female at birth. This sounds implausible - surely if it was a mistake at birth, it would have been realised before he reached adulthood? (In particular, before he found himself in a white silk frock curtseying to the monarch!)
Anyway, the church seemed remarkably unfazed about the whole thing, the local newspaper carried wedding photos without remark, Aberdeen University altered their records to describe him as "son of" instead of "daughter of" etc etc.
It would be nice to think the same situation could be treated with as little fuss today.
It is nice they treated it without fuss. There is one intersex condition where the person looks completely female externally, but is XY and may have undescended testes inside. How you can really say they are therefore "a man" I am not sure though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome
Not saying this is necessarily the condition this person had, it could have been some other condition of indeterminate looking genitals, such as a penis so small it was mistaken for a clitoris.
Posts: 1019 | From: Nice, France | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Sadly, I think there would be a lot more fuss from the church today.
But it does mean the Church of Scotland has a precedent for behaving reasonably in a potentially difficult situation.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Haydee
Shipmate
# 14734
|
Posted
multipara - my question was not about a specific person (I agree their medical/relationship issues are their own business), but the general principles.
For those who do claim that male/female is a very defined split and 'means' something Biblically about your role in life, and who prescribe what relationships are acceptable and which are 'sinful' - what is their stance on someone who doesn't fall into those categories? I assume that being intersex wouldn't be seen as a 'lifestyle choice' in the way homosexuality is?
Posts: 433 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:
multipara - my question was not about a specific person (I agree their medical/relationship issues are their own business), but the general principles.
For those who do claim that male/female is a very defined split and 'means' something Biblically about your role in life, and who prescribe what relationships are acceptable and which are 'sinful' - what is their stance on someone who doesn't fall into those categories? I assume that being intersex wouldn't be seen as a 'lifestyle choice' in the way homosexuality is?
Does anybody really think that homosexuality is a `lifestyle choice'? I thought that kind of thinking died out years ago?
Anyhow, the fuzziness of biological gender is not something I `think' -- it's an observation of fact. There are, as a matter of observation, a substantial number of people who cannot be put into `male' or `female' categories using any of the tests we currently use. There are parent, people I know, who are currently uncertain about whether to bring up their children as male or female because their gender is ambiguous.
It's easy to make bald pronouncements about what `men' can do, and what `woman' can do, when you live in a society that has strong gender roles and where biological male-female anomalies are hidden away.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Haydee
Shipmate
# 14734
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:
multipara - my question was not about a specific person (I agree their medical/relationship issues are their own business), but the general principles.
For those who do claim that male/female is a very defined split and 'means' something Biblically about your role in life, and who prescribe what relationships are acceptable and which are 'sinful' - what is their stance on someone who doesn't fall into those categories? I assume that being intersex wouldn't be seen as a 'lifestyle choice' in the way homosexuality is?
Does anybody really think that homosexuality is a `lifestyle choice'? I thought that kind of thinking died out years ago?
Anyhow, the fuzziness of biological gender is not something I `think' -- it's an observation of fact. There are, as a matter of observation, a substantial number of people who cannot be put into `male' or `female' categories using any of the tests we currently use. There are parent, people I know, who are currently uncertain about whether to bring up their children as male or female because their gender is ambiguous.
It's easy to make bald pronouncements about what `men' can do, and what `woman' can do, when you live in a society that has strong gender roles and where biological male-female anomalies are hidden away.
Errr... sadly a lot of Christians think of homosexuality as a 'lifestyle' choice. And there are various ministries dedicated to turning people into 'ex-gays'
Posts: 433 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
multipara
Shipmate
# 2918
|
Posted
Haydee, I understood the OP only too well.
I have tried to suggest that so-called "morality+ is not the issue at stake in the matter of intersex and perhaps the morality is best applied to the outsider who should be thanking the good God that she or she got a better hand in the morphological lottery.
A proper Xtian would pray for such tragically affected individuals-and preferably not such people to embrace holy celibacy, or some such nonsense.
m
Over and out.
m
Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:
Errr... sadly a lot of Christians think of homosexuality as a 'lifestyle' choice. And there are various ministries dedicated to turning people into 'ex-gays'
Yeah, I know. I was being ironic :/
But, to some extent, there's no point being concerned about the views of such people. It takes real, wilful ignorance to maintain views like that in the modern world. Such views might well be a problem, but they aren't going to change. Such magnificent stupidity isn't amenable to any kind of rational argument ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
It's possible, I suppose, to distinguish between ethical issues that apply to people of ambiguous gender because of genetic abnormalities, and (ay) homosexual people who have no overt genetic problems. After all, as you rightly say, a homosexual man can, most likely at the cost of his sanity, be conditioned to suppress his fundamental nature. But a person who is genitally dysphoric can't be traied to grow more appropriate genitalia.
But I really don't know how helpful such an approach is. The distinction between structural and functional disorders has always been a fuzzy one in medicine, and it seems to me that it gets more and more fuzzy all the time. To build a system of morality on the basis that they can be clearly distinguished seems rather dodgy to me.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
So many of those who think there's a real male/female dichotomy would assume an intersex person has a "true" sex (either male or female) and is deformed. The question is how do you determine what a person's "true" sex is? Going 'way back, it would be assumed to be a metaphysical difference, but I'm not sure how one consults a metaphysical gender. Now, I have yet to hear an explanation for upholding this stark dichotomy that isn't misogynistic or at least sexist. The religious version of it traces back to ancient Greco-Roman metaphysics (e.g., Aristotle) and usage, and basically defines "manliness" as "virtue" ("vir" being the Latin for "man") and tossing "womanliness" the leftovers (but patronizingly construing them as virtues - e.g., women are to be "actively receptive" which as far as I can tell means a virtuous woman will say "yes" to a man's initiative... Mary is of course held up by some Christian theologians as the exemplar of this particular "virtue," God being male and all).
Anyway, I would guess then that on this view, you must pick a sex and go with it. Naturally, you would want to pick male if you can make it work. And then you would lead a heterosexual life.
A childhood friend of mine came out to me some years ago as transgendered. She chose not to have any operation, because she had no trouble dating women, but she considered herself to be a heterosexual male, despite her physical sex. Her father, a minister, told her there was no such thing as transgender because it's not in the Bible. They still had a good relationship and everything; he just probably thought she was suffering some delusion or was making a wrong lifestyle choice. I give this example to show that some will simply choose ignorance if the data doesn't fit their pre-conceived categories.
I'm not the sort of person the OP was directed towards, but I'd say the morals for an intersex person are the same as for anyone else: a respectful, mutual, equal, committed, monogamous relationship with the person you genuinely love.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
Anyway, I would guess then that on this view, you must pick a sex and go with it.Naturally, you would want to pick male if you can make it work.
Why?
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
Because, given the cultural framing described by churchgeek, being male is better than being female.
quote:
The religious version of it traces back to ancient Greco-Roman metaphysics (e.g., Aristotle) and usage, and basically defines "manliness" as "virtue" ("vir" being the Latin for "man")
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Melgrem
Apprentice
# 15391
|
Posted
I hope you will forgive a newbie posting on what is quite an old thread - but I think (hope?) that's acceptable in Dead Horses. Mods, please be lenient with me if not.
This is an issue I've been interested in for a while but was disappointed to find not much written about it by Christians. It seems that people often mix up intersexuality and homosexuality, even though it's clear that what anatomy you are born with is definitely not a choice. Even those who believe homosexuality is a choice (which I don't) must be able to see that there's a difference.
Anywho, I wanted to say that it sounds like there is actually a sensible book coming out about this soon - Sex and Uncertainty in the Body of Christ by Susannah Cornwall, an English theologian. It's not clear from the Amazon blurb whether sexuality/choice of sexual partner is discussed much, but I'd have thought it would have to be, surely?
Posts: 10 | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
Melgrem - welcome to the Ship.
No forgiveness is needed for a newbie, or indeed anyone else, who re-energises one of our dead horses - they all need a canter at some time or other ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Matariki
Shipmate
# 14380
|
Posted
Thanks for the recent stirrings in this thread. I am just preparing to give a lecture on a related issue at a college next week so I have been trying to get my brain into gear.
There is no clearer proof to me than the existence of Intersex folk that sexual morality lies in the heart; not inbetween our legs.
--------------------
"Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accompanied alone; therefore we are saved by love." Reinhold Niebuhr.
Posts: 298 | From: Just across the Shire from Hobbiton | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
