Re: Intersexuality (was: BOOK: Gender Shock)

Anders Sandberg (
11 Apr 1998 20:25:42 +0200

"Erik Moeller" <> writes:

> >we are most likely cutting off a path of
> >our own evolution at its source.
> So you cannot be sure whether the number of intersexual babies has
> increased. But how can you say that it is "most likely" a path of our
> own evolution?
> In which way would an intersexual be more fit to its (for lack of a
>better pronoun) environment than its male or female friends?
>Heterosexuality is a very important concept, both for reproduction and
>socialization. Zoophilia, homosexuality, pedophilia, all these are
>likely to have evolutionary origins, but I cannot see a possible use
>for intersexuality.

I think you take the word 'evolution' to literally here. It seems to
be used a lot on this list instead of the dreaded and passť 'progress'
or 'development'.

I would rather say intersexuals might be important since their
existence undermines the traditional (and IMHO unhealthy) binary view
of gender. If more people are allowed to develop *their own* gender
identity (and then correct their bodies to fit it) there will be less
resistance to us who have developed a slightly different species
identity and want to fix it...

> OK, so you believe that the kid's identity is impaired after
> "fixing" his sexuality. Are there any psychological studies supporting
> this view? I grant that it is difficult to do such studies if all
> attempts are blocked because of such "bugfixes".

I know Kathryn will likely have much more information on this, but it
seems that at least of the some of the cases earlier reported as
"successful" have turned out to have been mistakes. (Diamond, M.C. &
Sigmundson, H.K. (1997) Sex reassignment at birth: Long-term overview
and clinical implications. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent
Medicine, 151 298-304)

Anders Sandberg                                      Towards Ascension!                  
GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y