Sex: Unknown

Are you a man or a woman? I'm assuming you can easily answer this simple question with one of two answers, but imagine not being able to do that. Imagine not knowing exactly which gender to classify yourself as. Nowadays, science plus technology along with people dedicated to defining every occurrence on Earth, creates a society eager to distinguish and label all physical, biological and medical possibilities. However, there seems to be a lack of this approach when it comes to gender. Three main variations between just male and female have been commonly discovered, but not welcomed into society; they are instead labeled as genetically defective and in need of a gender assignment because of the way gender is concretely defined. This standard has created a problem in itself, giving surgeons in this field the power to decide which surgical solution is best for newborn intersexuals. When over 50 percent of gender assigned people experience a surgical reversal and are unable to conceive a child either way, are humans in a position to take responsibility for decisions that are meant to be beyond their control? Or, should the procedure wait until intersexual people are ready to decide for themselves?

The XY chromosomes begin determining gender within the first six weeks of conception. If a Y chromosome is present, then testosterone is produced and causes the male sexual organs to develop. Without the Y chromosome, then female sexual organs develop. Sometimes there are differing degrees to the amount at which these organs develop, with all sorts of titles for each biological occurrence- all labeled as either a syndrome, defect, or deficiency, however. As long as it is established that humans must be either man or woman, then there will be something 'wrong' with the people that are not completely defined as either. By creating this standard, a conflict is presented as a result of it, thus, having the need to create a 'solution' for all these people negatively classified as intersexuals.

This decision of gender identification is ultimately left to medical surgeons, when more often than not, the surgery is reversed. Once the person becomes aware of the condition he or she was given without control over the situation, that person takes necessary action in pursuit of their own happiness. So why can't the person be left alone until they are ready to decide for themselves? Why must the doctors assume the best surgical solution? Why can't the child just live as he or she was born, while the parents simply observe the child and reflect his or her environment by which gender he or she seems more keen to? Gender is not meant to be assigned; it already has been by nature. Instead, the doctors and scientists are left to decide if they want to accept or resist what nature has the power to be: unexpected and unable to define at times. The easiest thing to do is embrace all possibilities; embrace all gender variations there may be and perceive them as nature that must be nurtured; not as 'unacceptable' nature that must be rejected and made acceptable. There is no improper nature that must be altered. People that believe they hold the power to decide this are not nurturing the Earth as it is, but controlling it as they see fit. The population is then influenced in the same close-minded way of those who couldn't accept gender variations as they were.

Let's compare this to a simple analogy, for example: discovering that as far as we know, the only two types of fruits we've observed on Earth so far are apples and oranges. We go along, happily observing the difference in development and how we can easily distinguish which fruit can be classified under which of the two categories. We don't limit ourselves, however, to thinking that these are and will be the only ways these two types of fruit develop. So, if we notice some alternative development, say what appears to be an apple on the outside has orange wedges inside, we simply accept it. We officially establish another developmental circumstance, and that is that. We do not try to genetically mutate it into specifically an apple or orange; whichever we think it should be. Who said it was supposed to be one or the other? It is not defective or disabled; it is natural and nature is not meant to be perfect or imperfect. We would be mutating the fruit by trying to make it something it is not.

When I watch doctors speak of these surgical procedures for gender assignment, I see in them a need for a solution. A very likely reason for needing a 'solution' would be if it was communicated to everyone that there are only these two genders; anything beyond, in between or different from them, isn't suitable. I see it as protection from being wrong or accused of labeling too little too soon. A large percent of the time, an intersexual person doesn't have the ability to conceive a child. Would genetic modification change that? No, someone would still be unable to become or have someone else become pregnant. So what's the real point of the genetic modification? It's to comfort those who didn't nurture the idea of nature in its entirety, including what was perceived as 'imperfect.' Just because technology is advanced enough, biology is not meant to be controlled or manipulated; especially without proper consent of those undergoing biologically altering procedures.

For instance, when an unconventional method of circumcision was decided, only amongst the surgeons, to be used on Brian Reimer, the boy suffered great loss of his genitals. He was then turned into an experiment: to be medically altered into and raised as a girl, proving John Money's theory right or wrong. Money claimed that nurture, not nature, is what makes the child. After years of observation and much confusion, Brian Reimer reversed the surgery once he found out, stating, "After a while of trying I gave up...There's no way of knowing whether you're a boy