Intersex and Pride: I am the eunuch born that way

1 thought on “Intersex and Pride: I am the eunuch born that way”

1. What I think makes your explanation of how you fit with what Jesus says about those born Eunuchs is that it also challenges the oh so many liberal voices I have run into who want to read this passage in that was as an obvious reference to all persons who we today refer to as intersex yet in a profound way are absolutely wrong about how the passage presents as potentially refereeing to intersex persons and definitely refers to a category of person that conceptualizes a group that would include some of todays intersex folks.

   We have to consider also as you touch on that this first category of Eunuch is not a hermaphrodite and then from there we have to note that what they meant by hermaphrodite was not who we mean by intersex or lets be real precise hermaphrodite as used in modern times not that long ago and what had been termed Pseudo hermaphrodites is in modern and ancient conceptualization more of a chimera that described an idea of a dual sexed body neither of which gives a accurate name to what we observe about some human bodies though I think it is a term that was attempting to name something about bodies doctors observed but was as so often happens was less observed reality and more taxonomy through nomenclature and ultimately collapsed under the inadequacy of its own scientific definition to correctly identify the bodies it intended to give a name while in the case of the ancient world I do not think it was in observing a child or adult who embodies the two sexes or if their body did it is still the duel sexed spirit they attempted to name and portray in the God who gives iuis that word.

   People and certainly babies do not look like the statues of Hermaphroditus and I could be wrong but what I get looking at those images is their attempt to employ a symbol of this GOd’s dual sexed nature sort of like his secret identity tyaht we the audience view at the fundamental level but others in the stories told will see the sex he is embodying at a give moment or some blending .

   But Where I think you are onto something I totally over looked has to do with your bringing up how you would appear to someone in the first century if naked. I have assumed that if thinking of today’s intersex persons these would many of them have been dead at or soon after birth and a great many of the others born alive would have been at risk of possible exposure if deemed deformed. But for the many that would be observed and identified as male or female incorrectly I used the lack of many historical references and the hand full of court cases that exist which like many of the cases of trans individuals in our modern terminology who before the modern eara would seem to have had a greater ability to simply live as the gender assigned or some could have changed to the identity that fit which could have been self initiated or parent supported and weather we are not hearing of these people much in documents is a fact that speaks to the commonplace nature of some people on some occasions switching how they are identified or more about the banality and culturally specific sensibilities about exactly what is seen as adequate or inadequate to correctly determine someone’s sex or gender in different eras.

   But that is where your point popped into my head like a lightbulb and reminded me to locate myself not in the 1700s and the few documented references found there but remember we are talking the first century and despite the Jewish aversion to public nakedness, their prophylactic employment of youthful ignorance of the sexual say having kids wed at 14 or 12 basically as soon as there is a chance of some tingle down there to prevent unwed pregnancy, realization of homosexuality, too much investment in any particular mate choice on the basis of looks or having a lot of knowledge of men’s private parts so as to give you reason to question ones own husband’s adequacy (which are possible cultural practices but depend on postdating Talmudic approaches to such matters onto the first century or assuming the continue to apply to the community in the first centure depending on if we are talking about the hostory of the talmud’s composition or the mythic origins of its bevy of teachers)

   But no this is the Jewish people under the Roman Empire having had years before that living under the Seleucids over a century of enjoyiing what Alexander had initiated when eneteringthe city of Jerusalem and making his offering at the temple which was cultural occupation and done in such a winsome way not even the explicitly anti-greek attitudes that give us the story of Hanukkah was able to undo what had already been done since by that point what Judaism had become and what the people of that land were was reimagined through the lens of international greek culture. So while Jerusalem would have had bathrooms with individual doors to maintain privacy and while men and women would be seperated for a Mikvah it could be a very symbolic division and the number of public and private baths in ancient Israel it is easy to imagine that in one year of religious festivals they could out bath the number of baths taken by the Tudors in an entire life time. And for many the Gymnasium was still popular so once that is remembered then absolutely this is a catagory taht encompases instersex persons and in your case on two levels absence of testicals and your male gender identity without an interest or ability to do the deed with a female and that fits the one catagory of eunucch so it would have some intersex persons and gay guys ideopathic males and homosexuals possibly others but you and I are in there brother. BUt I wanted to share my mental aproach because I think it matters that we arent looking at this in a sloppy lets fit people in ala liberation theology lite but in a textual criticism first level hermanutic sensce historicalk analysis paired with all teh critical theroetical considerations and responcible attention to the nameing a and catagorizing with all of its powwer to cvrteate legible identities as well as a more materialsit and essentialist read that looks to phenomologgical populations in different historical eras. You are there in the text in the plain sense historically acurate way or someone like yourself not in teh way Marsha P JOhnson threw the first brick or we ow the gay rights movement to trans women of color but in teh sence that we have modern pride and teh Gay and lesbian task force after stone wall because of teh people brought to gether and conected in advance of taht monet through places like the oscar wild bookstore owned by Craid ROdwell. We are talking Frank Kamanie Barbara Gittings queer ancestors not 2 spirit queer ancestors but the people who occupied the various names that are gummed up in the 2 spirit label. Sorry to go on with my clever little devisive shady point at that end.

   LikeLike

   Reply