fipto

"true hermaphrodite" is sort of a misnomer in humans. when people are called this, the term refers to people who have what resembles both ovarian and testicular tissue. this could be: one ovary and one testicle, or one or more 'ovotestes' which are structures that sort of resembles both. no matter the combination, we have never observed a human being who has produced both eggs and sperm. even individuals with this different development of sexual organs still produce either eggs, sperm, or (somewhat commonly) neither one.

also, its not just that we haven't observed someone who produces both gametes, but it is basically impossible due to how our bodies work.

you have been very respectful, and i mean this with respect as well: do you think it is possible that there is a scientific answer to this, and perhaps you don't know enough to confirm or deny it?

this is really only a debate when it comes to humans, because it is not emotionally charged at all when we speak of the sex of a dog for example. it is reasonable to say that approximately half of dogs produce sperm, and those are the males. the other half produce eggs and are females.

there isn't really a debate there, no one claims that "dogs with long hair are female" or anything stupid like that...

in every animal, sex is determined by what gamete their body is set up to produce. this is just what the scientific method has shown, really. i say this with no hate or love in my heart either way. if science is able to show otherwise, then i shall follow it there. it is not my opinion, and it is not what i want to be true. it is just an observable thing

when you say "both sex organs", I'd like to clarify that there has never been a recorded case of a human h*rmaphrodite. (NOTE: this is not only an offensive term (when used on humans, as opposed to say, frogs), but also an inaccurate term! just a fun fact for the readers...) to elaborate: there has never been a recorded case of someone who successfully produces both eggs and sperm (whereas some other animals do). while you are correct that sometimes you may be born with organs that resemble both testes and ovaries, there will only be one that functions, or one that is closer to functioning (one is more dominant). sometimes neither function.

ps - I don't have a narrative. I just love science! biology is neat. and this is all totally separate from gender identity.

can you clarify what they are not born with? I want to make sure we're on the same page, and discussing the same specifics. women can still produce ova without a uterus. women can still have a system that supports the production of ova if they have ovaries that don't function for whatever reason.

I agree that both could be useful in different contexts. I'm only speaking of biological sex in my definition, which is different from gender. in ~99.9% of cases, doctors can tell from observation at birth what someone's sex is, and it is noted on the birth certificate. (to clarify, do you consider the birth certificate to be a medical record?). I do support the amending of birth certificates if the doctors observed incorrectly. I don't think think any other medical records would have to be shared with the government, but (beside the point: ) you should assume they always are anyway. but doctors could never "check medical records to determine gender" anyway, as gender and sex are not the same.

right, "born with".

not sure I understand what you're saying in the second half, could you elaborate?

edit: i think i see what you meant. most women are XX, maybe that was a typo. chromosomes are strongly correlated with sex but are not what determines it. that's why i didn't mention chromosomes. you're right, not all women are born with a uterus, or with ovaries that actually produce eggs. but from a biological standpoint, we can determine which gametes (egg or sperm) that would be produced, were it the case that everything was functioning.