There are several factors that go into a purely medical distinction between a variation from the norm and a deformation. Numbers are part of it but most important is funcationality. Medicine presumes a purpose for human organs and if the purpose is inhibited or interrupted then it is a deformation.

You allude to hermaphroditism I believe (when you say “inter-sexed”). The NIH refers to this as a “rare disease.” It is rare because it affects a very small percentage of the population. It is a disease because reproductive functionality is impaired and most often disrupted. Someone suffering from this disorder is not both male and female but simply have ambiguous genitalia because of a genetic disorder. They are most often infertile. Without medical intervention they certainly cannot procreate. It will never be a normal variation because it cannot reproduce itself.

You also refer to abnormal adrenal hyperplasia (large clitoris). This is caused by a malfunctioning adrenal gland. This disease is often accompanied by fused labia which can appear similar to a scrotum. It also can accompany such symptoms as the inability to process salt and severe illness. It requires medical intervention.

It is reaching to try to redefine sexual pathologies in order to avoid acknowledging that human nature is binary–that is it has only men and women–and their entire structures are oriented toward reproducing and rearing children. However, I suppose that is no different than is being done with the invention of a “gay gender.”

It does no one any good service to ignore their problems in order to try to help them to feel better about themselves. The right thing to do is to help them to recognize there is a problem and to help them find the options available for addressing the problem.

This would be the same as saying that those born with any other deformity would be a separate “class” of human being. That indeed would be a sad state of affairs, this is what the Nazi regime argued. The performance of sex reassignment surgery is an acknowledgment that it is a deformation. In every case, even for those who have an extra chromosome, there is still genetic clarity pointing to the maleness or femaleness of the unfortunate person born with such a deformity.

Exactly on what evidence do you base your judgment that this is a “deformity” rather than a normal human variation? You could pretty much describe every aspect of human individuality as a deformity. Why is inter-sex a deformity and having brown hair not?

Even besides those who are born inter-sexed is there not a great deal of variance in genitalia? At what point does having say a very large clitoris become a “deformity”?

Donna Marie – yes those exposed to high levels of testosterone prenatally or neo-natally do exhibit more masculine traits but they still are genetically, physiologically, and psycho-emotionally, clearly feminine. The difficulty for some is that they don’t always clearly identify with other girls at a young age because of their masculine traits. This does in some cases lead to confusion of their sexual identity. However, it would be just that, confusion. It is helpful I think to understand if one is a high-testosterone woman as it helps to explain why the difference between the way you and other women, on average, respond to things without having to think that there is something wrong with you.

This would be the same as saying that those born with any other deformity would be a separate “class” of human being. That indeed would be a sad state of affairs, this is what the Nazi regime argued. The performance of sex reassignment surgery is an acknowledgement that it is a deformation. In every case, even for those who have an extra chromosome, there is still genetic clarity pointing to the maleness or femaleness of the unfortunate person born with such a deformity.

This means then that every man and every women on the planet has this pathology, since every man and woman does have female and male sections of their identities.

I’m not quite sure of what you mean by “section of identity.” It sounds like you see a personality has being fragmented. The virtue of integrity acknowledges quite the opposite. The person, to be healthy, must be totally integrated in all aspects of his personhood. That men possess secondarily, attributes that are primary for women and vice versa does not fragment the personality but constitute it has being fully human. It is when the secondary feminine starts to become a primary feature of a male that a pathological state arises.

There certainly are degrees in which individuals exhibit these characteristics but other than pathological cases, the least masculine male is still distinctly male and the least feminine female is still distinctly female. There is no androgynous class of persons.

You are quite incorrect. There are indeed inter-sexed people born every year. They are a “class”. Even though sex reassignment surgery is performed on them, (and has often turned out be incorrect) they are still not quite the same as either wholly one gender or the other.

Sure, when women have masculine psychological or emotional identities it is called a pathology. The same is true for men having those of women.

This means then that every man and every women on the planet has this pathology, since every man and woman does have female and male sections of their identities.

Your statement about what constitutes “pathology” is murky and cannot be supported or proven by any facts that you have provided. It sounds more like a purely personal value judgment, not a reasoned logical conclusion.

Actually, Patrick, it does reflect reality. Neither is it overly simplistic but you are correct, it is a recognition of what is distinctly masculine and what is distinctly feminine.

There certainly are degrees in which individuals exhibit these characteristics but other than pathological cases, the least masculine male is still distinctly male and the least feminine female is still distinctly female. There is no androgynous class of persons.

Does Hauke address the biological fact that elements of both genders, no matter how insignificant, exist in varying degrees in both sexes?

Men and women both have all that is required to be human. Human masculinity means to have some of these are primary qualities and some as secondary qualities. Femininity means to have the complement of these.

That this includes matters of psychological and emotional gender identity?

Sure, when women have masculine psychological or emotional identities it is called a pathology. The same is true for men having those of women.

The writings you have quoted make it sound like Hauke thinks both men and women are two entirely different species. That is ridiculous.

See above. I suggest you read Hauke’s book. Also try Stephen Rhoads, Taking Sex Differences Seriously. Also, try reading part ii of this series for the theological foundation for the ontology of sex differences.

While the sex characteristics serve a telos, a purpose, they do it in such a way that the masculine primary and secondary characteristics are eccentric, he initiates and goes outward. Feminine primary and secondary are integrating and interior.

That is an overly simplistic view of men and women. It does not address that actual reality. They are generalization’s of male-female characteristics. Those things however exist in a continuum from person to person and even from one point of time to another in the same person. And many of those characteristics serve a variety of purposes, not just gender identity.

Does Hauke address the biological fact that elements of both genders, no matter how insignificant, exist in varying degrees in both sexes? That this includes matters of psychological and emotional gender identity?

The writings you have quoted make it sound like Hauke thinks both men and women are two entirely different species. That is ridiculous. There are many characteristics both share. And they have a common human template.