human rights for ambiguous gender

[annewandering]

World Blog - Hermaphrodites push for human rights in Germany I thought this was an informative and thought provoking article. Kinda sorry to start another gender thread but since this involves the legal aspects I thought it deserved its own.

[Guest]

Haven't read the link yet.. .will do later this afternoon.

I just wanted to say... Human Rights for this group and human rights for that group... I mean, can't it be just human rights for Humans?

:)

[Vort]

anatess nails it. There is no such thing as "Gay rights" or "Workers' rights" or "White rights". Humans are endowed by their Creator with rights. That is all.

[annewandering]

Problem here is that people have a great tendency to perform life changing operations without their approval rather often. Normally I agree that we just need human rights but it seems that this group is selected out to be mistreated in a very perverse way. Til we actually have human rights for everyone we, apparently, need to do it group by group.

[Backroads]

While I whole-heartedly agree with anatess with human rights for humans, I also see anne's point. I also have the conflict that I believe you truly are essentially either male or female...

[iinarihoudai]

While I whole-heartedly agree with anatess with human rights for humans, I also see anne's point. I also have the conflict that I believe you truly are essentially either male or female...

And right now, that is based entirely on physiology. If a baby is born with both sex organs the parents are forced to choose a gender. This often leads to disastrous results as the child hits puberty.

Also, what is male and what is female? Is it the gender roles as our society has defined them? I think not. Men do not lose their maleness by doing housework or crocheting. Females do not lose their femaleness by working outside the home or fixing a car.

There's more to being gender than physiology and stereotypes.

[Jenamarie]

While I whole-heartedly agree with anatess with human rights for humans, I also see anne's point. I also have the conflict that I believe you truly are essentially either male or female...

I agree that our Spirits certainly are, but our bodies don't always match. Just like it's our bodies that have cancer, or malformed limbs, or diabeties, rather than our Spirits, I believe that someone can be essentially male or female, but have a mortal body that had something go awry in its development and end up being of ambiguous gender.

[iinarihoudai]

Vort, your argument doesn't work because you have a different definition basic rights than others do and there will always be people trying to oppress in order to gain power.

[Vort]

Vort, your argument doesn't work because you have a different definition basic rights than others do and there will always be people trying to oppress in order to gain power.

Hold it. You say my argument "doesn't work" because my definition is different from others. Why does that mean my argument fails? Who says their definition(s) is (are) correct?

The Declaration of Independence reads, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Do you disagree with that document?

[iinarihoudai]

No, of course not. But what is a right? It used to be that document excluded non-humans and blacks were considered to be highly capable monkeys. It used to be that we did not have the right to interracial marriage. Homosexual unions currently do not have the same rights as heterosexual ones.

Your explanation is too simple. That's why it does not work because in practice it's nothing like that.

[Vort]

Your explanation is too simple. That's why it does not work because in practice it's nothing like that.

This answers nothing. What, specifically, is wrong with my definition? And what is the definition you propose to replace it with?

[skippy740]

But what is a right?

A fundamental right is a right that all people can simultaneously claim without forcing someone to serve their needs.

[Hala401]

anatess nails it. There is no such thing as "Gay rights" or "Workers' rights" or "White rights". Humans are endowed by their Creator with rights. That is all.

Perhaps members of the church understand human rights issues better than most. Mormons have struggled to get the full privileges of the First Amendment for a very long time.

[Hala401]

Haven't read the link yet.. .will do later this afternoon.

I just wanted to say... Human Rights for this group and human rights for that group... I mean, can't it be just human rights for Humans?

:)

I think it is important that everyone read this link. I know two individuals who had the same thing happen in the 50's. And generally, the parents were not even informed, nor was the surgery documented. At that time, Doctors were seen as minor Gods and pretty much had free rein on what they did.

Now days, I would hope that they would at least perform a Karyotype test, and perhaps even wait a few years to see what sort of tendencies the child exhibited. I know that this issue must have come up before in a population as large as the LDS church.

What puzzles me is that in both cases I know of, the medical people chose to remove the female organs and not the male. It would have been much easier to remove the male organs.

My general impression of the LDS is that our population may be more highly educated than some of the groups I have experienced, so what better place to address this issue.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Hala401
Clarity

[iinarihoudai]

This answers nothing. What, specifically, is wrong with my definition? And what is the definition you propose to replace it with?

I am simply stating that using your definition as a definitive, a that's that kind of way, does not work because people are more complex than that. We need more specifics. Without the specifics we cannot fight against those who would take away our rights.

[iinarihoudai]

Hala, I hope you are not implying that I'm not a member of the church because ding ding, I am.

[ruthiechan]

Vort, this point could come from how you believe that homosexuals already have their rights and they are asking for special rights, yet other people disagree with this.

[Hala401]

While I whole-heartedly agree with anatess with human rights for humans, I also see anne's point. I also have the conflict that I believe you truly are essentially either male or female...

I'd like to keep my response sweet and loving, and must admit that I have some extremely strong emotion surrounding this subject.

In my own personal experience the binary model can be almost imposible to identify, especially at birth. We used to think of XX as female, and XY as male, but in the last 10 years genetic scientists have identified thousands of combinations in between.

I was brought up in the hell oriented, evangelical dogma where they simplistically said things like, "God don't make no mistakes!" while yelling and pounding their fists on the pulpit. The hate and bile is one of the reasons that I eventually left them. I have known young men who looked absolutely beautiful female in the face, but in the pool, well you know. Then there is me who people struggle with until I open my mouth. No, I would never win a beauty contest. Of course my friends say I am beautiful, and it makes me want to refer them to a psychiatrist. So, maybe some of us are critical of ourselves.

In the 40's and 50's people of indeterminate gender were simply killed.

[Backroads]

Yet Jenamarie is correct: Our religion teaches us our spirits are either male or female. I can't fully support the idea that you can correctly be "something else". Physically, yet, but spiritually(essentially) no.

[OnAJourney]

Haven't read the link yet.. .will do later this afternoon.

I just wanted to say... Human Rights for this group and human rights for that group... I mean, can't it be just human rights for Humans?

:)

So right you are. I appreciate your sentiments. We should allow everyone to have all the rights and privileges we allow ourselves. However, excluding individuals that are different from ourselves is an early survival tatic. It is a a survival mechanism to ensure survival of a group by rejecting others.

King Benjamin said: "For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father." (Mosiah 3:19)

These "instincts" that were required by historical circumstances (as well as in some areas today) need to be overcome to "putteth off the natural man."

[Vort]

I am simply stating that using your definition as a definitive, a that's that kind of way, does not work because people are more complex than that. We need more specifics. Without the specifics we cannot fight against those who would take away our rights.

I don't understand why, but you keep avoiding my questions. Let me try again:

• What, specifically, is wrong with my definition?
• What is the definition you propose to replace it with?

[annewandering]

Back to the original question. Intersex people do not have choices in what they are. If you were born and your parents decided to change your sex to the other sex would you think your rights had been violated? I would think they had been.

It is interesting to note that most of these babies are changed to resemble boys. Gee am I surprised? That makes the odds of the doc and parents choosing the right sex are less than 50/50.

We are male or female in spirit. Isnt it our right to be that here? Isnt it our right to decide for ourselves if there is a question?

I have a friend with this issue. I also have a son who was born with questions as to his sex. We were told we had to pick a sex for him. The doc thought he was male but was not sure. In the autopsy it turns out the doc was right. But what if he had been wrong and our baby had lived? This is a very personal issue since it happened in our life.

It has huge impact in the church. If the wrong sex is picked then temple sealings are all messed up. Choices have to be made with ALL the information in the concerned person's hands not by docs or parents at the birth or even as a child. It is their RIGHT to be the sex they are, not one that someone chooses for them.

[Hala401]

If there were a body of people who are knowledgeable about the latest genetic science, I would not be surprised to find them at BYU Provo. Among the thousands of combinations that one can find by just googling, are XY females who look female and all that, but often have no Uterous. Then of course there are XX males, and XXY, And XXXY and Xy and oh so many other combinations. And NOW we find that various hormone levels in utero can bolix things up too.

Astonishment flooded through me as an LDS Doctor looked at me and my test results, and for the first time in my entire life someone acted like they understood. Disbelief flooded my mind, but slowly Holy Spirit calmed my fears and emotions. People like me go through a lot, and I know some who complain that the church has not treated them well.

As for me, once Holy Spirit convinced me to trust, my own experience has been astonishingly wonderful beyond anything I could have asked for. I think the church will lead the way on this issue, and I thank Heavenly Father for that every day.

I don't want this to sound trite and over used, but I know that the Church is True, and that this is Jesus Christ's church and that the book of Mormon is true.

[annewandering]

I think you may be right, Hala. :)

[Backroads]

Back to the original question. Intersex people do not have choices in what they are. If you were born and your parents decided to change your sex to the other sex would you think your rights had been violated? I would think they had been.

It is interesting to note that most of these babies are changed to resemble boys. Gee am I surprised? That makes the odds of the doc and parents choosing the right sex are less than 50/50.

We are male or female in spirit. Isnt it our right to be that here? Isnt it our right to decide for ourselves if there is a question?

I have a friend with this issue. I also have a son who was born with questions as to his sex. We were told we had to pick a sex for him. The doc thought he was male but was not sure. In the autopsy it turns out the doc was right. But what if he had been wrong and our baby had lived? This is a very personal issue since it happened in our life.

It has huge impact in the church. If the wrong sex is picked then temple sealings are all messed up. Choices have to be made with ALL the information in the concerned person's hands not by docs or parents at the birth or even as a child. It is their RIGHT to be the sex they are, not one that someone chooses for them.

I recall talking to a woman who served her mission in Africa, I believe. She and her companion were working with a family who had a baby where they just didn't know. This woman arranged for the baby to be taken to a hospital, have everything checked, etc. Turns out the baby was female, and the Church was willing to put out for an operation for her.

Parents said no thank-you. They said this was how God made their daughter and they weren't going to complain.

I was surprised at the choice when I heard the story, but this topic does have me thinking... I suppose if she does want to be physically female she can find a way to go about when she's older...