[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: Asexual? (was Question about New Testament)

[Jennifer Boggess Ramon]

*Warning* *Warning* Nonstandard sexualities discussed in this post. 
If this will be offensive, please skip to the next post immediately.








At 10:55 AM +0000 8/10/03, Grey Wolf wrote:
>
>  > - does sexuality require a body?
>
>Yes. 'Male' and 'female' are defined as those able to produce
>spermatozoids and ovules, respectively, by Science.

Er, I didn't realize "Science" defined anything.  Perhaps biologists 
have done so.

However, the definition you give above is not for sexuality, but for 
sex.  I'm not sure it says anything meaningful about sexuality as 
such.  I'm also not sure it says anything about the monotheistic God, 
in particular the Christian one, either.

To address the second issue: it seems to me that the virgin 
conception of Jesus implies that the Christian God can produce 
spermatozoa, or the equivalent, and thus should biologically be 
considered male by this definition.

>To be precise, male
>is the XY cromosome combination and female the XX combination.

But this says nothing about sexuality.  There are many people with XX 
chromosomes who have very diverse sexualities: straight, bisexual, 
femme lesbian, stone butch, submissive, Domme, intellisexual, latex 
fetishist, celibate . . . dozens and dozens, many of which I haven't 
even encountered yet.  Moreover, some of those sexualities have 
nothing whatever to do with ova, or even with what's between their 
legs (or their partner's legs) at all.  It's not at all clear to me 
that a spirit (however we choose to define that) cannot have a 
sexuality, merely that it's unlikely that a spirit's sexuality has 
much to do with what's between anyone's legs, as they may not have 
any.  (Indeed, this has been my experience - that spirits can and do 
have sexualities; they're just not exactly like human sexualities.)

>Bible
>definition is less direct, I think, speaking of ability to bear
>children for females. We could discuss the other half-dozen or so sexes
>found in human race (XXX, XXY, XXXXY etc), but since I remember
>basically nothing of them, I won't.

Let me give two examples: some humans are born with an XO combination 
- that is, they have only one chromosome in their last "pair," and 
it's an X.  (This is called Turner's syndrome.)  Now, we only need 
one X (obviously, or the guys would be in trouble), so this actually 
doesn't cause huge problems in development - there are some issues 
with spacial intelligence, and minor physical problems including 
short stature.  The ovaries don't develop, so there are no ova, and 
these people are sterile.  But, to all appearances, including the 
external genitals, they are female.  Indeed, often they only discover 
that they are genetically different at puberty, when they fail to 
menstruate.  Are you really going to tell them they aren't real 
females?  And, their sexuality is usually the same pattern that we 
consider "straight female."  If they're not really females, what is 
it?

Some humans are born with an XY chromosome pattern, but their cells 
are androgen-resistant.  Thus, the Y chromosome instructions are 
never turned on, and the person develops with external genitalia that 
are female, although they do not develop ovaries or a uterus.  When 
they hit puberty, they even develop breasts on schedule, although 
they fail to menstruate.  Once again, 90% of them sow a pattern of 
sexuality that most people would identify as "straight female."  Are 
you going to tell them they aren't real women, either?  What label 
would you put on their sexuality?

And if it's this confusing and muddied for those of us with obvious 
physical manifestation, I don't think it's safe to make assumptions 
about those that dwell in the spiritual world at all.

-- 

  - Boggles, aka J. C. B. Ramon			boggles(at)earthlink.net
"It is not knowledge, but the act of learning, not possession but the 
act of getting there, which grants the greatest enjoyment. "
	- Gauss, in a Letter to Bolyai, 1808.