Dear Editor,
Vidyaratha Kissoon in your edition of Sunday, April 4 (‘While science has recognized intersex the law does not recognize it’), says that science recognises an ‘intersex’ and, without clearly saying what intersexuality really is from a scientific viewpoint, subtly implies that this recognition validates the claim of the effeminate homosexual to belonging in scientific terms, to a ‘third sex’ or ‘third gender.’
A common source such as Wikipedia, available on the web states that most “third sex or genders” have nothing to do with intersex at all, but exist only as modes of homosexuality. Intersexuality, we learn, is a physical condition with visible and perceptible chromosomal and often genital-gonadal manifestations. In short the old ‘hermaphroditism.’ Nothing to do with the cross-dressing brethren trying to squeeze perfectly formed genitals into a female G string-thong. That Mr Kissoon and others are seeking to misappropriate the genuine distress of these folk, what some now call the intersexuals, and distort their message is quite cynical and heartless on their part.
The Intersex Society of North America, a support and advocacy group for people suffering from this complex of conditions, speaks of it in reality as degrees of hermaphroditism, and state clearly on their website that the condition is a “Disorder of Sexual development.” There is absolutley no mention of homosexuality and its advocacy in the organisation’s discussion of its work. The term ‘intersex’ was specifically promoted to replace the old ‘hermaphroditism’ and the stigma it carried. So Mr Kissoon is misleading the public in suggesting that inter-sexuality has anything to do with his pro-gay propaganda.
But hopping on every available bandwagon has long been part of the confusion of the homosexual communities. So they have tried to get into ‘intersexuality.’
It must be noted that the need for social acceptance is not unanimously felt by gays, many of whom seem to prefer the netherworld of the closet and its secret handshakes and coded intimacies. In fact, for many, half the joy of the thing seems derive from the fact of its clandestine nature.
It must also be noted that the ‘hijra’ on the Indian sub-continent to which he refers, genuinely ‘transgender’ in behaviour and occupation, occupy an interesting niche in society and some have been castrated. What is the reference intended to suggest? Can we go into what Dr Sudhir Kakar, the famous Indian psychoanalyst describes as ‘tantric sex’ complete with excremental daubing and invocation of demons? Just because it is Indian? If Mr Kissoon strives to prove that the bizarre and the unhealthy exist all over space and time he has to start from a position that humanity is aware of this and has taken steps to define what is correct in terms of behaviour.
But what are the ramifications of stealing the ‘intersex’ self-definition? For one it means that sexual relations with these folk would then come under the standard prescriptions of marriage or remain subject to a ban in light of their physical of psychological disability. It also means that their physical condition may start to interest us. Meaning that they may be seen as a mine of unutilised or unwanted sexual organs that could possibly be put to better use – revealing the possibility, once the technology is advanced, of using these folk who view their male apparatus with repugnance or indifference, as organ donors.
But what is troubling about the letter from Mr Kissoon is the contention that homosexuals cannot change. They can merely opt for celibacy. Not only does this contradict a lot of clinical and religious experience but it introduces a mechanistic determinism to this behavioural disorder that could drive to despair those who may really wish to change. And as I have said before, the theological implications are frightening.
Yours faithfully,
Abu Bakr