Intersex person accuses Howard of discrimination

Australian Broadcasting Corporation ^ | 28 May 2004

[Gid_29]

Just thought of this: In the current day and age, with current practice only allowing marriage between a man and a woman, would a person born without necessary organs (I don't know why they would be) be allowed to marry a gender of their choosing? And what if, as was the case with the man recently in the news (don't know the name), there was an error in circumcison and the genital areas were damaged, leading doctors to attempt to rebuild the man as a woman, who would they be allowed to marry?

Essentially, the question is this: what if the genetics of an individual say one thing, and through some twist of fate, the body says another thing.

(I don't know why this popped into my head, but I think it deserves some discussion, because I really am at a loss for what to say)

[AntiGuv]

Legal sex is assigned at birth regardless of anything else, and if the legal sex is found to be 'incorrect' then it can be reassigned at a later time. That's generally how it works most anywhere that matters.

[longtermmemmory]

I was agreeing in part. As I pointed out, the site said that the 30% who are not steril are the "moasic" type which has both normal and abnormal genetic material. Thus the normal cells produce material useful for reproduction but the ABNORMAL cells do not produce useful genetic material for reproduction.

Either way I agree with you this a legal game of the leftists.