>I wouldn't equate biological genital forms with philias--clinically,
>the two don't relate to each other.
Still, most sexual inclinations are defined genetically. I gave them as examples for biological properties in the wide area of sexuality that can be of benefit to the human race and therefore survive in the process of natural selection. Intersexuality is no such biological property.
>Due to the vast progress made in reproductive technologies,
>intersexual humans are now able to pass on
>their genetic structures to their offspring. A recent study has
>claimed that a group of non-mosaic Kleinfelter's males were able to
>procreate through an advanced method of in vitro. This means that,
>for the very first time, their chromosomal structure is passed on to
>offspring. And when cloning is honed to the point of feasibility for
>humans, any human can at least replicate. This is why the topic of
>gender continues to fascinate me--it is an arena in which evolution
>takes place before our very eyes.
For the record: You are talking about cultural evolution here and not about natural selection. Survival through the aid of technology -- in the context of biological evolution, this is impossible.
>Not a case of belief, but of mounting evidence.
Sorry, because of the lack of sources in your original posting I had no choice but to call it belief.
Erik Moeller