|
 |
On 12-5-2012 9:47, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 11/05/2012 23:46, nemesis nous fit lire :
>> andrel<byt### [at] gmail com> wrote:
>>> I've said it here before, there is no watertight definition of a 'man'
>>> and a 'woman'
>>
>> It's called a penis. If you got one of these, you're a man and is supposed to
>> put it to good use with someone who lacks it, hereon called a woman. If you
>> don't, you begin to whine and complain and try to legislate in favor of 2+2
>> being 5 or just getting rid of the damned thing...
>>
>>
> I'm afraid you have been misleaded by obvious criteria, which are plain
> wrong.
>
> Look at the old olympic ski medal of Erika Schinegger (1966, female,
> 1968 discovered internal male sex organs... )
and the thing in south africa last year
> No penis.
>
> Even genetic classification (23th pair of chromosom for human: XX vs XY)
> is unreliable. There is also a few XXY, XXYY and XYY , how are you to
> call them ?
>
> (XXY frequency is about 1/800 along "male")
>
and there are XX that are morphological males, XY females, and
hermaphrodites, and transgenders, and ...
Virtually the only way to make sure that only a provable male marries a
provable female is to restrict marriage to couples with children *after*
a paternity test (and a maternity test too, for some weird cases).
Though this might interfere with ideas about premarital sex that are
held in the same circles. Testing it in a testtube similar to IVF might
work too, but will interfere with the idea that an egg after
fertilization is a human with full civil rights.
I know that whichever way you want to do it there will be large groups
of people that will not be able to marry anyone. It wouldn't surprise me
if that will be considered an advantage rather than a violation of human
rights.
--
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the
floor, unless you prefer to not use uppercase.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
