>>14374567Not him, but it is a good discussion. I think we should reframe the question, what if someone exists but does not suit well the definition of male or female
We'll use these two definitions:
>>14374413 >>14374445We can see how the male equivalents can be easily constructed similarly.
Now in the event of extreme genetic abnormality, we ask how do we define someone who does not fit these definitions well?
I suppose we should start with androgynous: This is someone that can fit both definitions. Now specifically we'll define a hermaphrodite as someone who fits both and exactly: possesses both sex organs, produces both gametes, is fertile, and can sustain a pregnancy.
Otherwise they are androgynous.
Next we should consider chromosomal abnormalities, they can be considered a woman if they fit the phenotypical definition of a woman, and specifically be fertile as well. A woman who fits both but is infertile not related to a chromosomal defect can still be considered a woman.
Anything that does not then fit these definitions will be classified as dissex.
We should tract these kinds of things so we can terminate these mutants before birth.
