|

A
Personal Preface
In
order to better understand the essay that follows it will be helpful
if readers know something about my life and the manner in which
it has influenced my presentation of gender identity issues, specifically
the controversies surrounding intersexuality.
I myself am a disabled
and intersex person. At birth I was assumed to be a normal girl,
and was therefore raised as a girl, but in fact I was a so-called
"true hermaphrodite" of the late-virilizing kind. Despite being
raised as a girl, I identified as male and secretly began calling
myself David at the age of nine. During my teens I led a double
life, as a girl in my parents' home (to please my family) and as
David among my friends and in the nearby city. Eventually my body
began to masculinize, becoming muscular and developing a functional
phallus, body hair and beard.
My gender identity is
male and heterosexual, but in my youth, while still rather feminine
looking, I was continually persecuted as a gay male, and gay men
assumed that I was one of their own. Thus I had many gay friends.
This phase lasted several years, between the time I was being erroneously
perceived as what some would have called a "butch dyke" masculine
girl and my final virilization. During that time I never self-identified
as a female or a lesbian, or participated in the lesbian subculture.
After my body lost its confusing feminine looks I was no longer
publicly assumed to be a lesbian or an effeminate gay man, nor was
I persecuted for what some might have assumed to be my homosexuality.
I tried to carry on my
life as a normal (but increasingly disabled) heterosexual man. Eventually,
due to my human rights activism, those opposed to my work sought
to publicly defame me by making up stories that I was a male-to-female
transsexual, a female cross-dresser seeking male privilege as a
Hindu monk, or a masculine gay man. Because my slanderers could
not understand what I was, they called me everything in the book.
Since I was being considered for a responsible position as head
of interfaith communications for the World Vaishnava Association
in India, I decided to address the accusations about my gender and
sexuality by making a brief public statement concerning my intersex
condition and unusual history.
In addition to the lack
of understanding of my intersex nature, illnesses and disabilities
contributed to perceptions on the part of both Hindu and Protestant
fundamentalists that I was somehow an accursed bad-karma abomination
or a sinful demon being punished by God. As readers of BENT will
understand, the chronically ill and disabled suffer greatly under
all forms of fundamentalism. During my time amongst fundamentalist
Muslims and Hindus, I was continuously reminded of my great "hidden
sinfulness," which (according to my self-righteous healthy judges),
was being "revealed by God through infirmity" to publicly humiliate
and humble me.
My own experience as
an intersex person, combined with my research, has convinced me
that unraveling the biological mysteries of human gender identity
will be most profitably approached through the study of both human
and animal intersex conditions, including natural sex-reversal.
Because the post-Victorian-era "modern" fields of religion and psychology
have failed to pose appropriate questions it stands to reason that
they cannot provide the answers we need regarding human gender identity
and sexuality, or the place of the "third gender" in human social
systems. Only when we set aside the religiously charged and politicized
framework in which these questions have been immured will we be
able to allow the cooler heads of science to investigate the mysteries
of neuro-endocrinology and physiology where the answers we seek
are more likely to be found.
My experience as a religious
person (a vowed monk and now a Sannyasi) convinces me that through
"appreciation" we can discover the unexpected beauty and goodness
hidden within each unique and mysterious human life, while we empower
the common virtues as well as the more rare human gifts. If, instead,
we allow ourselves to fall into the habit of "depreciating" people,
we contribute to the dis-abling of our fellow beings. Depreciation
is dis-abling and its effect is the opposite of empowering. This
is where personalism comes in. Impersonalism demands nothing from
us. It takes openness and vulnerability to get to know people, to
be personal with them. If we don't know any men, women, or children;
any gays, straights, or intersexed persons; if we do not associate
with Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, humanists, or pagans; if
we shun blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, "crips," mentally ill people,
or those who are cognitively impaired the inevitable result will
be that we impersonally lump them together, we depreciate them as
a class.
BENT invites the participation
of readers that identify with or sympathize with two classes, gay
male and disabled. As BENT readers and writers share their stories,
personal relationships grow and a community begins to form, a development
especially noteworthy in a world that has de-personalized and depreciated
persons viewed or self-identified as gay or disabled.
To be sex and/or gender
atypical and disabled as well is a great challenge--even for those
privileged "white" males of European heritage we hear so much about.
Now imagine being a disabled black Lesbian Jew or Christian in the
Arab-Muslim dominated Sudan. The fact is that disabled people of
color get less and worse care even in the affluent USA. What about
access for and quality of medical care for gay people of color?
As we learn to look
at one another more deeply we may be inspired to take a regular
spiritual inventory of ourselves, so that we can humbly assess how
other-centered or truly loving we still need to become. Through
sharing our experiences we can break down the barriers of impersonalism
and help to empower each other. How can we be satisfied with being
members of a "class" when we could be members of a loving, empowering
community?
THE SELF
IS INFINITELY MORE THAN THE SUM OF SOME BODILY PARTS
ONE
"Same Sex" Marriage, Defining Male and Female, and
the Right of Intersex Persons to Be and to Marry
Jerry Falwell and
his cadre of ill-informed homophobic marriage defenders are still
at it. The premise of their "One Man and One Woman" Marriage Initiative
(http://www.onemanonewoman.com/)
has been endorsed by President
Bush as an appropriate basis for an amendment to the United States
Constitution. We should all welcome it, because medical challenges
to such a law will prove, ultimately, the impossibility of using
medical criteria to define a "man" or "woman." The many kinds of
intersex persons who cannot fit any chromosomal or anatomical definition
of male or female will have to have their constitutional rights
upheld. The reality of such persons will never permit a simple chromosomal,
gonadal or genital definition of male or female, man or woman.
By trying to force
a legal medical definition of "man" and "woman' for marriage purposes,
Falwell and his followers are in for a real shock from God and Mother
Nature. Already the International Olympic Committee has entangled
itself in a nightmarish legal mess by trying to define "male" and
"female" for athletic competition legal purposes. The Committee
had to stop genetic testing as a result of the surprising number
of intersex persons who were being kept out of the Olympic Games
because they could not pass the Committee's "sex" testing.
The reality of life
on Earth is infinitely more complex than the common misunderstanding
of male or female so passionately espoused by persons like Mr. Falwell
and the promoters of the marriage amendment. Hoping to influence
what they see as the moral decline of our nation, these marriage
defenders base their case on a belief in human sexual dimorphism
that has no grounding in objective reality. Neither is their misunderstanding
Biblically based: you will find no mention of sex chromosomes or
mixed-sex gonads anywhere in the Bible. The Falwellian idea of male
and female is one based on out-dated 19th-century and early 20th-century
science, an era when scientists assumed that animals and humans
came in only two models, with only two kinds and expressions of
sex chromosomes, an era when XY=male and XX=female. Modern science
knows that this is simply not true.
Consequently, the
key to the ultimate defeat of this misguided marriage-protection
legislation is the fact that no purely biological definition of
male or female will ever suffice. Chromosomes cannot be used to
legally define every human because not all humans are merely XX
or XY. Some are chromosomally XXY, XO or Mosaic. The astounding
fact is that Mosaic persons can test XX, XY, XXY, XO (or something
else) in various parts of their bodies. Further complicating the
human mix are naturally sex-reversed people, who may possess XX
chromosomes with male anatomy, or XY chromosomes with female anatomy.
Neither can gonads
(ovaries or testes) or other reproductive parts be used to define
every person's sex, because some otherwise "normal" men have a uterus
(Persistent Mullerian Duct Syndrome) and some intersex chromosomal
"women" have a functional penis and testes. Thus there are completely
"sex-reversed" (this is the medical term) individuals whose physical
appearance, including genitalia, is the opposite of their sex chromosomes,
so that Complete-AIS XY "genetic males" may have female anatomy
and function sexually just like normal XX women, while Complete-CAH
XX "genetic females" may have external male anatomy, and live their
entire lives as normal men.
Such naturally-occurring
sex-reversed people have, traditionally, been sex-assigned and raised
as their anatomical sex, not their so-called chromosomal or genetic
sex. There are also men and women born without genitals, as well
as intersex persons born with both a functional vagina and a functional
phallus. Furthermore, some intersex people are so-called "true hermaphrodites"
(a medical label that is being phased-out as offensive), possessing
ovotestes, or both testicular and ovarian tissue in their mixed-sex
gonads. Although most intersex persons are infertile, some can and
do biologically parent children or successfully give birth. In 2001,
when I was compiling a survey of the best and most recent research
on sex differentiation and intersex conditions in vertebral species
(including our own), I read a number of scientific reports on intersex
and sex-reversed animals and humans who had fathered or given birth
to healthy offspring. Yes, there are XY women who have given birth
to normal children. So reproductively successful XY sex-reversed
females are not limited to other species; fertile and infertile
(with treatment) XY human females have given birth. [See
terminal note.]
TWO
Increasing Intersexuality in All Species: Our Legal
and Moral Responses
The feminization
of all species due to environmental estrogen-mimicking compounds
is a serious problem worldwide, called by some a crisis and an epidemic.
In some badly polluted areas, the incidence of XY feminized intersex
persons has doubled in the last twenty years. Since more and more
people are born every day who cannot be sex-assigned according to
traditional chromosomal differentiation, what will Mr. Falwell and
his "man-woman" marriage crusaders want the legal establishment
to do with these souls?
The increasing incidence
of intersexuality means that such individuals will themselves need
to challenge any simple dimorphic definitions of gender identity
in order to secure their basic human rights. One wonders if more
and more informed people in government, anticipating a legal nightmare
on the legislative horizon, might try to block the passage of a
federal marriage amendment. The institution of marriage cannot be
"defended" by discriminating against a vast number of intersexed
human beings.
So, let the ill-informed
bring on this amendment, and then let science respond with the question:
"How will we define "male" and "female"? I welcome the ensuing struggle,
which will once and for all end the legal-medical tyranny of anatomical
parts over people who do not fit neatly into our society's fantasy
of a simple, sexually dimorphic species.
The proposed amendment
is exactly what is needed to bring national and global attention
to the scientific, medical and human rights questions that surround
the issue of assigning gender identity. Simplistic definitions of
male and female, or man and woman, are the fantasy of inexperienced
and poorly educated people like Mr. Falwell. Such bigots would benefit
from learning about the medical, legal, and pastoral needs of intersex
and sex-reversed people and their families.
In the real world,
humans come in a staggering variety of biological conditions that
range from the standard-issue XX=female and XY=male, through an
extremely complex continuum of intersex states, all the way to the
naturally sex-reversed XX-male and XY-female. Increasingly, we humans
exist in every state possible and viable between "normal" male and
female and chromosomally sex-reversed male and female. In fact,
estimates for various population groups range from 1 in 2000 to
1 in 100 for persons born with some atypical sex differentiation
or intersex condition. The difference in these statistics is due
to which conditions are included. When common female virilizing
and male prenatal failure-to-masculinize conditions like hypospadias
are included, the more accurate frequency of 1 in 100 intersexuality
is statistically reflected.
Unfortunately, for
psychological reasons, common "mildly" intersex conditions like
hypospadias and phallic clitoral size are not usually included in
intersex statistics. Thus denial operates to obscure the actual
frequency of these atypical conditions. Whichever statistics are
used, we can see that a large number of people will not fit into
any one-size-fits-all legal-medical definition. As I write this
a furious medical ethics debate rages about how to "treat" and assign
sex to the ever-larger number of intersex persons born every day.
At some point this medical ethics problem and the legal issue of
defining "man" and "woman" for marriage purposes will merge. When
they do, a new era for human rights education and activism will
begin.
Education about
the medical-legal impossibility of defining male and female is the
key to a human-rights-centered outcome in this politicized struggle.
The sanctity of sacramental marriage (in any faith) cannot be preserved
by denying the existence and basic human rights of part of the human
race.
© 2004 Bhakti
Ananda Goswami
Header © 2004 Mark McBeth, IDEA | MONGER ("Adam and Eve"
by Albrecht Dürer)
NOTE
For examinations of the issues raised in the foregoing discussion
I recommend two online resources where readers will find millions
of scientific journal citations, including hundreds of papers
on intersex and sex-reversal in humans and other species:
Editor's note: The author
has contributed chapters to two books of related interest: Tritiya-Prakriti:
People of the Third Sex and Embracing
Earth: Catholic Approaches to Ecology.
Don't
wait.
Let us know what you
think of this BENT feature.
.
Born
in 1949, I had Polio with brain-stem involvement and brief total
paralysis at the age of five. Later complications resulted in heart
and brain damage. The progression of Post-Polio Syndrome left me
bed-ridden for extended periods. For the last year my doctors have
been experimenting with high doses of testosterone IM, which have
improved my overall condition enormously. Circulatory, respiratory
and Post Polio Syndrome musculo-skeletal problems make travel very
hard on me, so I have given up attending conferences and lecturing,
and have recently had to resign from my leadership duties promoting
interfaith research and communications for the World Vaishnava Association.
Living as a Catholic hermit (under private vows) I am now turning
most of my energy from both public activism and private pastoral
duties to trying to improve my health and to write several books
on the subject of my Master's Degree (History of Religion, Comparative
Religion and Theology), and at least one book on the subject of
sex differentiation, gender identity, sex dimorphic behavior and
sex signaling responses in social species.
.
|