"Male and female He created them" .. and sometimes intersex

[EastwoodDC (Dan Eastwood)]

Somewhat off-topic, but I was once kicked out of a YEC FB group after politely offering the medical definition of Intersex, and suggesting such people deserve their compassion. There were a few likes before I was booted - so some of them got it.

[Edgar]

@MarkD

But like anyone else I find the movement in the cosmos from chaos to states of matter, energy and space to living beings and consciousness pretty spectacular. That it happens at all seems miraculous.

For me it’s a case, not of “seems miraculous”, but is miraculous - which is why I concluded long ago that they must be a Creator God that performs miracles.

So to grumble about blood and gore or mistakes seems small minded to me. But most Christians seem to think that every choice was available to an all knowing, all powerful creator so that every little nit pick needs to be justified as somehow necessary. I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree where do but I would point out we share at least some common ground.

I generally approach the creation and existence as a great, bottomless mystery, so I have little interest in trying to find answers for questions that cannot be answered.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Patrick_S

@Dana_Oleskiewicz

Or, do we broaden our understanding (i.e. article) of ‘maleness’ and ‘femaleness’ to be inclusive of everyone God has created, including those who were born as somewhere in the gray, beyond black (BOY) and white (GIRL)?

They are already included. There are boys with damaged genes and/or physical defects and there are girls with damaged genes and/or physical defects. Why would anyone want to create a new box to put them in? Should we do the same with other genetic/physical defects? This is exactly why Down’s syndrome children are becoming a rarity. They are being aborted when diagnosed in the womb. Genetic genocide.

Cato Institute – 29 Nov 11

Down Syndrome Geno

An unusual libertarian view, but there we are. But still anti-social.

[EDC1]

But surely it’s a genetic malfunction? Cystic fibrosis is genetic in origin but it’s viewed as a disease because it leads to the lungs not functioning properly, to the extent that few people with this genetic malfunction live beyond 40.

Of course such life-shortening consequences do not apply to someone born deaf, but that in itself does not negate the view that being born deaf is not ‘normal’. It isnt, because the ear which clearly has a defined function, is not functioning as it should. It doesnt matter whether the origin of that malfunction is genetic or has any other physical cause.

But whilst medical science has developed to some extent, I think most agree having a cochlear implant is not the same as having functioning ears. And it has to be said that it seems not many are healed directly by God, though some are (I know of a child of a friend from years ago who was born deaf in one ear, and who was subsequently healed completely during a meeting of ‘charismatic’ Christians).

So to a very large extent, deaf people live their lives as they see fit. Some want to be able to hear, others dont. What I dont understand are those parents of deaf children who refuse to give them the chance of some hearing because they view it as ‘normal’ and being part of a community.

[Terry_Sampson]

@EDC1

What I dont understand are those parents of deaf children who refuse to give them the chance of some hearing because they view it as ‘normal’ and being part of a community.

I gotta ask: Are you saying that you don’t understand parents of deaf children who refuse to arrange for their children to have cochlear implants because the parents view their child’s deafness as “normal” which makes them part of a community?

[EDC1]

You’re comparing humans with other animals/species and then drawing false conclusions. I assume you wouldnt compare dogs with mice to decide if dogs are lacking? The comparison should be within humans. Whilst there may be slight differences (skin colour etc) humans are the same with similar functioning parts. That is why medical professionals can tell the difference between healthy functioning parts and part which are not functioning as they should, whether due to genetics or disease.

[EDC1]

Ok I take your point. If a parent has been deaf themselves from birth, they dont know anything different.

[Terry_Sampson]

@EDC1

Ok I take your point. If a parent has been deaf themselves from birth, they dont know anything different.

I’d rather that you don’t take my point, because my question wasn’t intended to make a point. I asked my question to better understand what it was that you said you didn’t understand. (Note: I wasn’t arguing for a position; I was just trying to understand your position.)

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

I really really hate it when people do that. Though I once had someone do it with a point I agreed with and I could reply, “no that is not MY point but a worthy comment I very much agree with.”

[EDC1]

Oh ok, sorry. I thought I detected some incredulity. My spidey senses must be off.

[EDC1]

You must hate a lot lol.

[Christy (Christy Hemphill)]

@EDC1

Of course such life-shortening consequences do not apply to someone born deaf, but that in itself does not negate the view that being born deaf is not ‘normal’.

No one is claiming it is normal. Just that when a genetic difference is part of who you are, you definitely notice the difference between people who see you as different and people who see you as permanently damaged because you don’t fit in “normal.” Our posture toward people matters.

@EDC1

What I dont understand are those parents of deaf children who refuse to give them the chance of some hearing because they view it as ‘normal’ and being part of a community.

It’s fine not to understand someone’s perspective. Not so fine to impose your own perspective as the right one, because you are “normal” and they are not. If you don’t walk in their shoes and live their life. It’s a super complicated issue that touches on identity and culture in ways that hearing people are often not equipped to empathize with.

[EDC1]

Fair points.

[Paul_Allen1 (Paul Allen)]

Rebecca Helms article and explanation from a biological perspective is interesting. Challenging and most interesting to read.

From a theological perspective, has the SYR protein “popping off” always been present from the beginning? Some gene mutations block the action of SRY in development. Has this always been the case? Researchers state disruptions or changes (mutations) of a gene or genes that are involved in normal sex differentiation of a fetus with an XY chromosomal makeup cause Swyer syndrome.

From a theological perspective, from God’s good creation and the inheritance of fallen nature living in a fallen world (some don’t believe we sin because we are sinners) does that fallenness reach into our genetic makeup? Cancer -sickness -disability?

Is my identity found in my genes?

Perhaps Christians need to be educated in the far-reaching effects of our fallen world and the great destruction of inherited sin before they start to identify themselves with sin’s biological distortion’s and not as a gift from God but an identity in Christ.

I understand some hold to the view there is no fallen world, no fallen inherited nature it is simply a spin of the dice, random, by chance and outside of God’s sovereignty.

[Terry_Sampson]

@EDC1

Fair points.

So, are you ready for “a walk on the wild side”?

[Patrick_S]

@Klax

An unusual libertarian view, but there we are. But still anti-social.

How is that?

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Patrick_S

@Klax

An unusual libertarian view, but there we are. But still anti-social.

How is that?

Because Cato is privileged right-wing libertarian which opposes eusociality and epitomises freedom ‘to’. The humane elimination of severe genetic abnormality as close to source as possible is utilitarian; serves the greater good of society, freedom ‘from’.

[Terry_Sampson]

• First, I’d like to point out that I called out this thread near its beginning, and called it “a minefield.” I still firmly believe it is, even though the subject of the thread’s title and the OP fascinate me.
• I don’t expect you to know this, but labeling deaf people has undergone a quite a few changes, and most of those changes have been in the last 65 years or so.
  • In my early childhood, in Oklahoma City, darn near everybody, including the deaf themselves, called the deaf “deaf and dumb.” I was 8 years old, when a Baptist preacher’s hearing wife schooled me because I had used “deaf and dumb” in talking about a conversation between me and some adults. She informed me that “we” don’t say “deaf and dumb”, “we” say “deaf mute”; “the deaf are not dumb”. At the time, sitting in a car next to my deaf and dumb mother, I thought that was the craziest thing I ever heard: I knew first-hand that the deaf weren’t --as general rule–dumb, although in the Deaf circles that my mother and I were a part of, it was a “well-known fact” that a couple of the deaf were really “dumb” (stupid). But I bit my tongue and got through the car ride to the church without setting off another mine.
• Within the next 4 years, “deaf mute” fell out favor, and “deaf” became more common in conversation.
• What I think are even more interesting are the changes that the signs used by the Deaf to refer to the Deaf have undergone. I well remember being firmly corrected by a deaf client during my interpretation for him because I used a sign that had become “politically incorrect”. My problem was I didn’t know it was politically incorrect when I used it, Had I known, I wouldn’t have used it. [The neat thing about this forum is that there are a lot of folks around here, ready and willing to correct the ignorant real quick.]

Same theme; different focus.

• From Book Review by Douglas K. Detterman, Department of Psychology, Case Western Reserve University, (24 May 2010)
  Since the first classification manual published in 1919 the association, now called the American Association of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, has published classification revisions adopting and then rejecting the terms feebleminded, mentally deficient, and mentally retarded simultaneously changing its own name to include the newer term. Despite name changes IQ was always the primary diagnostic criterion with some later consideration of adaptive behavior.
• The Clinical History of ‘Moron,’ ‘Idiot,’ and ‘Imbecile’
  • Idiots. —Those so defective that the mental development never exceeds that or a normal child of about two years.
    Imbeciles. —Those whose development is higher than that of an idiot, but whose intelligence does not exceed that of a normal child of about seven years.
    Morons. —Those whose mental development is above that of an imbecile, but does not exceed that of a normal child of about twelve years.
    — Edmund Burke Huey, Backward and Feeble-Minded Children , 1912
• Possible moral: Today’s scientific label is tomorrow’s insult.

Same theme; different topic.

• In this thread’s OP is a link to a Scientific American article, first published by By Claire Ainsworth, Nature magazine on October 22, 2018
  • From the article: “Biologists now think there is a larger spectrum than just binary female and male”
  • “Sex can be much more complicated than it at first seems. According to the simple scenario, the presence or absence of a Y chromosome is what counts: with it, you are male, and without it, you are female. But doctors have long known that some people straddle the boundary—their sex chromosomes say one thing, but their gonads (ovaries or testes) or sexual anatomy say another. Parents of children with these kinds of conditions—known as intersex conditions, or differences or disorders of sex development (DSDs)—often face difficult decisions about whether to bring up their child as a boy or a girl. Some researchers now say that as many as 1 person in 100 has some form of DSD.”
• T.S. comment: Excuse me??? "Parents of children with these kinds of conditions–known as intersex conditions, differences or disorders of sex development (DSDs) " Disorders? really? Hmmm, …Do the intelligentsia at the front of the line need to reflect on the political correctness of some of their terms?

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

I also thought the title didn’t quite ring true.

The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic

Yes sexual development happens over a spectrum but in each case that expression draws on aspects or stages in the development of the two sexes necessary to replicate the species, female and male. I don’t think that detracts from the dignity of anyone’s particular sexual status. Rather than say “2 sexes is over simplistic”, I’d rather they’d said it isn’t an all of one or all of the other proposition. The idea that we all have some male and some female characteristics doesn’t seem like any kind of slur to me. There is certainly plenty of good in each and in every potential permutation of the two.

[EDC1]

Not too wild, I’m an introvert.