Sports? Marriage? Relationships? Professional environment? Pronouns?
Does it change based on the cause of the person’s intersex diagnosis?
Expect a weird take on the subject backed by no data
what do you mean? people with a variety of intersex conditions have been extensively documented by medical science.
Well yes but you asked for the conservative view
deleted by creator
Something that’s turned me off of “modern” conservatism is that “modern” MAGA assholes simply refuse to believe that intersex people exist.
A reasonable Conservative following Jesus’s word should note that Jesus hung out with the leapers, Jesus not just condoned but celebrated heretics like the Samaritans, and Jesus always favored the “outsider’s opinion”. A true Christian should always be accepting of others, including Intersex people. Especially intersex, they are creations of God and if you believe that God is good then the creation of God is good.
The problems occur when the assholes start to think that Intersex is bad, anti-conservative, anti-religion or some shit. Then all of a sudden you trigger the fight-or-flight response and Conservatives lash out. There’s also a degree of historic anti-gay writings in the Bible (ex: Sodom, as well as some writings from Paul), that somehow get wrapped up into intersex issues (somehow gay == intersex in some unstudied people’s brains?!?!? Or something). I don’t want to get into homosexuality and the Bible as that’s another subject but note that ancient Roman and Greek practice of homosexuality was a bit child-rapey and Paul’s writings may have not necessarily been talking about homosexuals in general (but instead: Paul was likely focused on the kinds that were more common in the time period, which we would find disgusting by modern standards)
In any case, I feel like the religious interpretation is clear. Every person is holy, outsiders are welcome. If you need to denegrate Intersex individuals and call them diseased (like the Leapers of Biblical time), whatever, that’s still a group of people Jesus explicitly called out as holy, as the Leapers were more ready and willing to accept Jesus’s preaching than the Pharisees. But I’m not even comfortable with the Leaper -> Intersex comparison myself as that implies some kind of disease. Still, I think its a good crutch that more Christians should lean upon if you’re finding yourself anti-Intersex.
A lot of modern Conservatism is actually warned against by Jesus and the various parables of the Pharisees. Its not that “Jews” in general were problematic, but certain… cults? Certain… ways of thought and ideologies… are based on false pride and false-understanding of the scriptures. And smarter people find themselves in this doom loop where you want to join the people who have studied more (the Pharisees were scribes and scholars)… but you end up missing the forest for the trees.
Jesus always said to take a step back and look at the big picture, rather than being so focused on scripture. Scripture can be interpreted incorrectly, to the point where the Pharisees scholars create a conspiracy to literally kill and crucify Jesus. The fact that the core Easter message is lost upon modern Conservatives is ironic.
deleted by creator
I grew up in a very conservative neighborhood in a very conservative town and went to a very conservative religious school. There was no sex-ed but there was a class on hygiene. There was no dancing but there was a “banquet” at which they served rice pilaf and rubbery chicken breast from a steam table.
There was never any mention of gay people, trans, intersex or anything else except that sex was reserved for a man and a woman after they were married.
The only exception to the above is the mention of eunuchs by Jesus in Matt 19:22. But what is a eunuch? I was told it was a person who had their genitals cut off and lived a life of celibacy.
Based on my experience alone, I would say that a common conservative attitude and policy is to ignore, deny and/or never acknowledge anything that’s not straight man+woman married for the purpose of having children.
In the case of the boxing woman, it’s interesting to think that if you only have two categories and you have to put her into one, some people put her in one category and some the other, but there doesn’t seem (to me) to be any clear objective way to tell which is right. This could be an indication that there really are more than 2 genders.
Or it could be that a cisgender woman of color whose body doesn’t conform to fascist eugenic purity standards is being targeted because she’s a better boxer than the white women and well, racism.
I’m a conservative so I can answer this question without speculation. I think intersex people should:
- be burdened as little as possible by taxes
- have a relatively free market so that if they can’t find dignity under any employer, they can go straight to the market as an entrepreneur
- keep a gun or two at home, to keep the government from having absolute power
- focus their efforts locally, to achieve maximum possible good from their time on earth
- face their fears willingly in order to develop the courage and moral strength to withstand hard times and tragedy
- be judged on their merit and the moral choices they make, not based on their biological characteristics
- be free to innovate and form economic relationships based on their own and their collaborators’ consent (aka have access to a free market)
I don’t understand how this is not the top answer in the thread. In my opinion this is almost the best possible answer.
Two things I have issue with: “have a relatively free market” should be “have a well-regulated market.” Obviously “well regulated” is open to interpretation, but there should be some agreement that the 2008 financial crisis was the result of insufficient market regulation.
“Be judged on their merit and the moral choices they make, not based on their biological characteristics.”
Sadly, this is a very untypical view. It’s clear that some of the most strict and punative conservative viewpoints are based on biological characteristics. Like, a lot. So much that it prompted Op’s question: where do intersex people fit into the strict conservative biological based rules on who can go where and do what?
Side stepping the real question shows that conservatives don’t really want to talk about, or know about intersex people, or anyone who isn’t the straight white heteronormative christian default. Its clear that most conservatives attitude about people who don’t fit that profile is that they should know their place, keep quiet and not be uppity.
It’s clear that some of the most strict and punative conservative viewpoints are based on biological characteristics.
I’ve not heard any conservatives say such a thing. Where did you get this idea?
Where did I get this idea? Well, I grew up In a very conservative neighborhood in a conservative town and went to a conservative private school and church.
You’ve never heard anyone say such a thing? You are either pulling my leg or you are unable to see it for what it is.
Here are just some of the prescriptive conservative ideas based on people’s biological characteristics: who can wear what clothes, what toys are appropriate for which children, hair length, who can go into which washroom, who can get married to whom, who can play what sports, decisions about abortion, and on and on.
Why so much time and discussion devoted to trans people in conservative media? Because they break the rules on who can do what, arbitrarily based on the junk you were born with. In the case of Imane Khelif, what she was born with was not enough to shield her from controversy and harassment.
When I was a kid I wanted an easy bake oven so i could make cake and eat cake, no other reason. What I recieved was a powerful whuppin for “tryin to act like a girl.” That’s where I got that idea.
