The Right of Intersex Persons
to Be and Marry
 
by David M. Sherman

As an intersex person, the current effort to federally restrict the legal right to marry to a man and woman deeply concerns me. The attached Time Magazine article states that in as much as "...2% of live births. About 30 genetic and hormonal conditions can give rise to intersexuality, ...". http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040301-593551,00.html This means that according to the U.S. Census Bureau, nationally approximately 5,816,194 Americans, and in the State of Oregon approximately 71,190 Oregonians are intersexed persons. Since these persons do not fit either-and-or any standard chromosomal or anatomical definition of male or female, what will their rights be under some federal law restricting marriage to a man and a woman? When expert 'gender teams' of physicians cannot agree on how to assign sex to some of these persons, who will decide for marriage reasons whether they are a man or a woman? Who will play God or 'King Solomon' with the lives and loves of these fully human but sexually atypical citizens?

Consider for a moment that the birth sex assignment for such citizens may later prove to be erroneous. This is actually what happens in many cases, as it is simply impossible to tell what the gender identity of some intersex persons will be until they reach puberty or adulthood. For this reason there is a medical ethics philosophy shift occurring internationally as the standard of treatment for intersex infants is being revised from the previous irreversible pediatric surgical model to the wait-and-see model of later and even post-puberty patient-chosen intervention.

From the legal standpoint, what will the consequence be of any federal legislation to define and enforce an exclusivistic man and woman right-to-marry law? Let us look at some examples of the very real problems that will ensue if such a law is passed.

DEFINING "MAN" and "WOMAN"

How will man and woman be defined for the purpose of enforcing the law, and who will have the Godlike power to establish this set of criteria?
The above mentioned Time Magazine article states that "about 30 genetic and hormonal conditions can give rise to intersexuality". The astounding variety of human intersex conditions caused by these genetic and hormonal variations defies every single possible set of defining criteria for man and woman. Let us consider some examples.

SO-CALLED SEX CHROMOSOMES CANNOT BE USED TO DEFINE MALE OR FEMALE

In Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (C-AIS) an intersex person can be chromosomally XY but phenotypically anatomically female.

In Complete Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (C-CAH) an intersex person can be chromosomally XX but phenotypically anatomically male.

Other prenatal hormonal influences can "sex reverse" an XY or XX person causing an XY-female or XX-male syndrome.

Not all human beings are even XX or XY persons ! Some are XXY, or have other atypical chromosomal configurations.

Mosaics are persons whose bodies contain tissues with a variety of chromosomal patterns, such that one tissue may test as XX, and another XY and yet another as something else, all in the same person's body !

GONADS CANNOT BE USED TO DEFINE MALE OR FEMALE

Some persons do not have gonads, or their gonads have been removed for medical reasons such as a high risk of cancer. Loss of the male gonads is also a tragic result of modern warfare due to land mines. If we define a person's sex by gonads, then will they lose their legal status if they lose their gonad(s)? If possessing a certain gonad defines one's right to marry, will people be denied the right to marry if they do not have the proper gonad(s)? To the contrary, many organs are transplantable today. If gonadal transplants become a reality in the future, will persons be able to acquire a sex or legally change their sex through gonadal transplantation?

A 'True Hermaphrodite' (TH) can have both ovarian and testicular tissue in the same organ, which is called an ovotestis. Who will a TH be allowed to marry? Will a TH be allowed to marry either a man or a woman or neither?

Some TH have an ovary on one side and a testis on the other. Will such persons be required to surgically remove one of their gonads in order to be legally one sex so that they can marry? What if the gonad that is required to be removed is their only reproductively functioning gonad? What if they want it for fertilization / biological parenthood reasons?

Some intersex persons have ovaries but otherwise normal male anatomy (some C-CAH persons for example). Would such persons be required to live as females in spite of their otherwise completely male anatomy?

Some intersex persons have testes but otherwise normal female anatomy (some C-AIS persons for example). Would such persons be required to live as men, in spite of their otherwise completely female anatomy?

The normal looking and functional (ejaculatory) testes of a XX C-CAH man do not have normal sperm. Will the sex of persons be defined by the reproductive capability of their gonads, or the shape and location and / or physical function of their gonads? If 'male' or 'female' fertility is the criteria for manhood or womanhood, what will be the status of the many other infertile people besides the often infertile intersexuals?

GENITALS, OTHER SEX ORGANS AND PHENOTYPE / GROSS ANATOMY CANNOT BE USED TO DEFINE MALE OR FEMALE

In Persistent Mullerian Duct Syndrome an otherwise NORMAL male can have a uterus.

In Vaginal Agenesis an otherwise NORMAL female can be born with NO VAGINA.

In Penile Agenesis an otherwise NORMAL male can be born with NO PENIS.

In many fetal androgenizing conditions an otherwise NORMAL female can have a very normal looking and even full-sized FUNCTIONAL PHALLUS.

In a variety of fetal estrogenizing conditions an otherwise NORMAL male can have a very small and even divided clitoris-like penis. There are extreme forms of Micro Penis and Hypospadias. While Micro Penis is much rarer, Hypospadias is so common that it is usually not even thought of as a form of intersex, which it actually is.

After puberty an otherwise NORMAL male Kleinfelter Syndrome person may have female breasts and lack any male-pattern hair.

After puberty an otherwise NORMAL female with Partial CAH may be bearded and have male pattern body hair.

Any combination of "secondary sex characteristics" may occur / does occur in the astounding variety of intersex people.

There are even late virilizing and late feminizing intersex syndromes in which an otherwise normal looking girl or boy undergoes a kind of natural sex-reversal at puberty. In such persons the transformations can be extreme, with an apparent clitoris growing into a fully functional penis and an apparently normal-looking penis shriveling-up and even bleeding due to menstruation from a hidden uterus. In some genetic groups the late virilizing form of MPH or so-called 'Male Pseudo Hermaphroditism' intersex is so common that in the Dominican Republic there is a word for it (Guevedoces, Guevedoche) that is often translated as "penis at twelve". This is the 5 alpha Reductase-2 and 17b Hydroxysteroid Dehydrogenase-3 Gene defect (see the National Library of Medicine abstract citation and Related Articles link below).

REPRODUCTIVE CAPABILITY IN NATURALLY SEX-REVERSED PEOPLE AND 'TRUE HERMAPHRODITES'

There are naturally XY sex reversed women who have successfully born children and naturally XX sex reversed men who have biologically fathered children. There are True Hermaphrodites who have born children. So while such reproductive capabilities are extremely rare, they are not impossible. Will the law recognize the people with such capabilities as male or female? Can reproductive capability be used to define male and female? If so, what about these naturally sex-reversed people?

IF THERE ARE NATURALLY SEX-REVERSED XX MEN AND NATURALLY SEX-REVERSED XY WOMEN, WHAT ABOUT TRANSSEXUALS. WHAT SHOULD BE THE POST-OPERATIVE LEGAL STATUS OF TRANSSEXUALS, AND GIVEN THE CORRECTIVE SURGICAL NEEDS OF INTERSEX PERSONS, CAN SEX-CHANGE SURGERIES BE LEGALLY PROHIBITED?

If a TH intersex person with ovotestes and a phallus is castrated and sex assigned as female at birth, and later proves to have a male gender identity and wants a legal, hormonal and surgical 'sex change', should he be denied this appropriate intervention?

If an intersex XY Partial AIS person is wrongly assigned female at birth and later wants a legal, hormonal and surgical 'sex change', should he be denied this intervention?

If a XY Partial AIS person is assigned male at birth, but later proves to have a female gender identity, and wants a vaginoplasty, hormonal and legal sex change to female, should she be denied this help?

If an intersex person has neither a male nor female gender identity nor a clearly male nor female body, should such a person be forced into one or the other gender role for some arbitrary legal reason? Should such a person's atypical body be surgically COSMETICALLY altered so that they can be a legal person by APPEARING to be either male or female? And... if appearance is what really matters legally, then what about transsexual adults who voluntarily have the exact same surgeries that intersex infants do involuntarily to so-called 'normalize them ! ? ! Should it be legal for doctors and parents to continue to force unwanted and medically unnecessary SEX CHANGE SURGERIES on non-consenting infants, but ILLEGAL FOR CONSENTING ADULTS TO CHOSE THE EXACT SAME SURGERIES FOR THEMSELVES to end their living hell of unwanted body parts, missing body parts, deformed body parts or erroneous at-birth sex assignments?

So-called sex change surgeries were not invented for use on transsexual adults. Phalloplasties and vaginoplasties were developed for corrective surgery on intersex infants, children and others with genital deformities or loss due to injury or disease. Various mamoplasty techniques were originally developed for disease or injury related breast removal or reconstruction. Hormonal replacement therapy and electrolysis had their own therapeutic uses before these became associated with transsexualism / sex changes. Why should these techniques be used to relieve the suffering of some humans but not of others? Why should the most drastic of these, such as phalloplasty and vaginoplasty be forced on an unconsenting infant or child PURELY FOR SEX ASSIGNMENT PURPOSES, and denied to a consenting adult SEEKING THESE INTERVENTIONS FOR THE VERY SAME REASON ?

WHAT GIVES A DOCTOR OR PARENT / CUSTODIAN THE RIGHT TO SURGICALLY SEX-CHANGE (BY CASTRATION OR VAGINOPLASTY) AND HORMONALLY ALTER AN UNCONSENTING INFANT ? OR SHOULD THE LEGAL-AGE INTERSEX PERSON HAVE THE RIGHT TO KEEP OR ALTER THEIR OWN GENITALS TO APPEAR MALE OR FEMALE FOR EITHER FUNCTIONAL OR LEGAL / SOCIAL SEX ASSIGNMENT REASONS? IF INTERSEX PERSONS SHOULD HAVE CONTROL OVER THEIR GENITALS AND THE RIGHT TO CHOSE THEIR SEX ASSIGNMENT, THEN WHY SHOULD ANYONE ELSE BE DENIED THE SAME BASIC RIGHT OVER THEIR OWN BODY?

SHOULD THE STATE RECOGNIZE THE EXISTENCE AND THEREFORE THE MOST BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS OF ITS INTERSEX CITIZENS, OR SHOULD IT CREATE NEWER UNJUST WAYS TO DENY THEIR EXISTENCE AND FULL HUMANITY? SHOULD THE STATE BE IN THE BUSINESS OF DEFINING MALE AND FEMALE / MAN AND WOMAN, WHEN THE WORLD'S BEST EXPERTS IN SEX DIFFERENTIATION CANNOT AGREE ON HOW TO DO IT SUCCESSFULLY IN 100% OF CASES?

Conclusion

If so-called sex chromosomes cannot be relied upon to define every person's sex, and gonads and genitals cannot be relied on to define every person's sex, and any specific combination of genes, gonads, genitals and body form or secondary sex characteristics cannot be relied upon to define every person's sex, how then can any law requiring a medical definition of male and female be justly enforced without violated the most basic human rights of some intersexed persons? By attempting to define male and female or man and woman, the government will of necessity be further de-humanizing and even erasing the very legal existence of some of its intersex citizens.

AT PRESENT THE FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS OF INTERSEX PERSONS IN THE USA IS NON-EXISTENT. SHOULD THIS DENIAL OF THEIR EXISTENCE, THEIR VERY RIGHT TO BE, CONTINUE AND BE REINFORCED BY SOME MISDIRECTED ATTEMPT TO 'PROTECT' HETEROSEXUALISM (AS IF IT IS IN ANY DANGER!) ? OR SHOULD THE EXISTENCE OF INTERSEX PERSONS BE RECOGNIZED ARE THEIR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO MARRY, BE
PROTECTED?

INSTEAD OF A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO DEFINE MARRIAGE AS BEING BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN, WE NEED AN AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO EXIST OF PERSONS WITH ANY FORM OF ATYPICAL SEX DIFFERENTIATION. WE NEED LEGISLATION TO PROTECT THE MOST BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS OF INTERSEXED PERSONS.

Please consider the above FACTS regarding the continuum of naturally occurring sex differentiation conditions. 2% of the population is a lot of human beings who do not fall neatly into the polar opposite categories of typical male and female.
Why should these people have any less right to marry or even to BE than other Americans?

We intersex persons are not simply existing to promote all manner of sexual deviations, to destroy heterosexual marriage or to topple Western Civilization. I myself am a doctrinally conservative Catholic and a celibate monk under private vows. Most of the intersex persons that I know just want to live normal decent moral lives as good family members and good citizens. And yet, we are confronted with very serious and even life threatening problems throughout our lives, because we are not normal men and women. I myself have had terrible hardships due to problems arising from my condition. For example, intersex persons cannot get life-saving medical help because hysterectomies are not allowed for men and other intersex conditions have no rating in any medical insurance programs. To much of the system, we simply do not exist, and so we cannot get any help. One intersex person that I know, who was sexually harassed on the job, had to sue his abuser under the Americans With Disabilities Act, because when he tried to sue for sexual harassment, it was determined that since he was neither male nor female, he could not properly file a complaint ! The law written to protect men and women did not protect persons who were neither. Thus he had to declare his condition publicly and call it a 'disability' in order to get any legal protection in his work place. This declaration and the public 'outing' of his intersex status caused him a severe public humiliation and breakdown. He did not sue for anything accept a public apology, which he finally did receive after a protracted fight.

Please help us to end this kind of hardship and injustice, and the medical abuse of performing sex change surgeries on unconsenting intersex infants and children. Please protect us intersex citizens from this mis directed attempt to 'protect' heterosexual marriage by a man and woman amendment. Such an amendment will require defining man and woman, which given the complex human reality of intersex, is a medical impossibility.

Thank you for your consideration in this very serious matter. If I can be of any further assistance to you please email.

David M. Sherman
Former Research Assistant
J.M. Richards Laboratory, Biophysics

For additional information regarding current research on intersex and sex reversal in vertebrates including man, please write Mr. Sherman with your request at bhakti.eohn@verizon.net.
Relationships or Marriage and a bit on how to protect one another
Vote for No marriage ammendment
Biblical marriage: a bad source for debate
by Vaughn Roste

We've heard a lot about "biblical marriage" lately, largely as a defensive reaction against same-sex marriage. I read one letter to the editor written by a Lutheran pastor that claimed that "the Bible clearly teaches that marriage is the God-ordained covenantal union of one man to one woman." How very applicable to the contemporary situation, I thought. If the Bible really teaches that (and in such modern language too!), then we all should be paying the Bible a lot more heed.

So I picked up my Bible and looked up all the passages that have anything to do with marriage (I had help: I used a concordance). I examined the scriptural use of all the words I could think of related to marriage: marriage, marriages, marry, marries, married, wedding, weddings, wed, husband, husbands, wife, and wives.

All told, I looked up over 800 references. Exempting the references which are narrative (e.g. "Adam named his wife Eve" Gen. 3:20) or metaphorical (Christ's marriage to the church, Rev 21:9), I was able to distill those 825 verse references into 12 general principles: 12 Biblical "rules" or guidelines regarding marriage which encompass the gamut of scripture. I hereby present the list, with the applicable references.

12 Biblical Principles of Marriage

Marriage consists of one man and one or more women (Gen. 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron. 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron. 11:21, 13:21, 24:3).

Nothing prevents a man from taking on concubines in addition to the wife or wives he may already have (Gen. 25:6, Judges 8:31, 2 Sam 5:13, 1 Kings 11:3, 1 Chron. 3:9, 2 Chron. 11:21, Dan 5:2-3).

A man might choose any woman he wants for his wife (Gen. 6:2, Deut. 21:11), provided only that she is not already another man's wife (Lev 18:14-16, Deut. 22:30) or his [half-]sister (Lev 18:11, 20:17), nor the mother (Lev 20:14) or the sister (Lev 18:18) of a woman who is already his wife. The concept of a woman giving her consent to being married is foreign to the Biblical mindset.

If a woman cannot be proven to be a virgin at the time of marriage, she shall be stoned (Deut 22:13-21).

A rapist must marry his victim (Ex. 22:16, Deut. 22:28-29) - unless she was already a fiance, in which case he should be put to death if he raped her in the country, but both of them killed if he raped her in town (Deut. 22:23-27).

If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow (Gen. 38:6-10, Deut. 25:5-10, Mark 12:19, Luke 20:28).

Women marry the man of their father's choosing (Gen. 24:4, Josh.15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, 12:9, 21:1, 1 Sam 17:25, 18:19, 1 Kings 2:21, 1 Chron. 2:35, Jer. 29:6, Dan 11:17).

Women are the property of their father until married and their husband after that (Ex. 20:17, 22:17, Deut. 22:24, Mat 22:25).

The value of a woman might be approximately seven years' work (Gen. 29:14-30).

Interfaith marriages are prohibited (Gen. 24:3, 28:1, 28:6, Num 25:1-9, Ezra 9:12, Neh. 10:30, 2 Cor. 6:14). Divorce is forbidden (Deut. 22:19, Matt 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:9-12, Luke 16:18, Rom 7:2, 1 Cor. 7:10-11, 7:39).

Better to not get married at all - although marriage is not a sin (Matt 19:10, I Cor. 7:1, 7:27-28, 7:32-34, 7:38).

How many of these Biblical principles are followed by Christians today? Not a single one [with the possible exception of number 3 - some Christian women may still have no choice in their marital partner! Nowhere in the Bible does it say that "marriage is the God-ordained covenantal union of one man and one woman;" in fact, it says explicitly to the contrary! The Bible lists at least 15 polygamists (not including Herod, who is known from the historical - but not Biblical - record to have had 9 wives), and in not a single place does polygamy carry with it any sense of opprobrium. Unfortunately, the pastor mentioned above would have been far more correct to say that "the Bible teaches that marriage is a covenantal union of one man to as many women as he might want and can afford."

So the next time your favorite politician or preacher claims to use the Bible in support of traditional marriage, ask him or her which of these 12 principles he or she is actually advocating. Probably none. Anyone who claims to use the Bible in support of a strictly monogamous union of one male and one female based on love, mutuality, and commitment will be hard pressed to find 2,000 year-old Bible verses in support of that very modern position. In fact, I daresay they cannot. The Biblical view of marriage is not monogamous: it is not necessarily based on love, nor on any amount of mutuality.

Most Christians would consider these Biblical principles of marriage to be misogynistic and repulsive - and judging by today's standards, they'd be right. Views have changed since Biblical times, as has our concept of marriage. Some would claim that this is the result of the Holy Spirit working in our world; most agree that just about all of the changes are a good thing. But if we concede that our concept of marriage has evolved, is it not potentially arrogant to summarily discount the possibility that marriage should continue evolving, or even that it might be God's will that it do so?

From the looks of the above list, it's a good thing our perspectives have changed from the Biblical model. Thus as we continue to dialog and prayerfully discern God's will in the area of same-sex marriages, we obviously cannot consider 2,000 year old statements made in other cultures and contexts to be all that is important. Please do not misinterpret that I am claiming that the Bible is not important - of course it is. It is central to my faith, as it should be for any Christian. But to rely on solely the Bible is to dangerously ignore two millennia of progress in the areas of science, technology, and human rights, a sin which we dare not let ourselves commit if the church is to remain relevant to contemporary society at all.

To rely solely on Scripture for church policy is to ignore the possibility that the Holy Spirit has been active at all in the sixteen centuries since the canon was closed in 405 CE. Indeed, we need to consider that the Holy Spirit may be actively encouraging us today to move beyond a literal reading of the Bible and to refuse to become modern Pharisees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The son of two Lutheran pastors, Vaughn Roste has since worshipped and worked in episcopalian and Presbyterian Churches, but his current employment is in a United Church. Holding degrees in theology and music from two different church institutions, he currently freelances as a writer and musician in Edmonton.


In Annapolis, MD at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at AU, was requested to testify.

At the end of his  testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said:  "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage  is only between a man and a woman.  What do you have to say about that?"

Raskin replied:  "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution.  You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

Organisation Intersex International
Marriage