I wasn’t listening to NPR tonight and they mentioned a congressman’s comments in support of “Don’t ask don’t tell”, the gist of which were “well its a slippery slope from that to being forced to admit transsexuals and hermaphrodites”: Full text is here. not that it’s that relevant to my question:
As well as making very little sense, the obvious question that occurred to me, is that is there anything about being a hermaphrodite that would exclude you from joining the US armed forces ?
The obvious answer is no, and it’s hard to expand any more within the bounds of GQ. The comments about how admitting gays would disrupt unit cohesiveness and hurt morale are the same arguments that were used against allowing women and minorities to serve. Its nothing more than a reflection of the speaker’s own bigotry.
There are no physiological reasons to support such a ban.
I can tell you what the regs say. Army reg AR 40–501, which is the med standards for entry, says
“2–14. Genitalia
a. Female genitalia.
…
(5) History of major abnormalities or defects of the genitalia such as change of sex (P64.5), hermaphroditism, pseudohermaphroditism, or pure gonadal dysgenesis (752.7) or dysfunctional residuals from surgical correction of these
conditions is disqualifying.”
As to whether this is a legitimate condition which warrants exclusion is beyond my limited medical knowledge.
You know, someone could have repair surgery done and never be told about it if it happened before they could form memories.
Hell, I was in the hospital when I was 4 and I now know what happened and I barely remember it- when I got old enough to be curious I asked my mom why I was in the hospital and got told. I just remember being seriously grumpy about not being fed, and being given some bowel prep the night before that made me totally crap the bed because the fucking nurses put the damned rails up on the bed and I couldnt get out of bed to go to the bathroom, then they yelled at me for crapping the bed in my sleep. Hell, 4 year olds are barely housebroken when they sleep and are sick enough to sleep like a rock no matter what is going on around them. Though I did like getting the viewmaster and discs…
[I was also grumpy because they would wake me up to give me sedatives to go to sleep…I never quite understood that shit either]
Good ones? Probably not.
For not being quite “normal” in a physical structure sense. Yes, they probably have some like that stuff on the books.
When I was taking a medical examination for application to the Naval Academy they discovered a “problem” which required further testing and investigation.
Upon entrance to the lab (aka the head aka the bathroom) the doctor (aka the pee pee quality assurance manager) had me create my own hydraulic parabolic work of art into another white porcelin work of art while standing up. This was studied in excrutiating detail.
They had to make sure I could pee straight. Imagine all the ways a naval academy candidate has to measure up to get an appointment and yet could be passed over because they couldnt pee straight.
Hank Hill and I must be related but I managed to pass with low and marginally straight flying urine.
I guess that answers my question. I had no idea. This was GQ so I was just after a factual answer about the existence of such a ban, not a justification of it.
blink
blink blink
Well, huh! There are some things that pass the understanding of mortals. Why you have to pee straight to join the armed forces is surely one such mystery.
I can ***possibly ***understand restricting a hermaphrodite to non-combat positions. If this person were injured in a body area with atypical anatomy, it could present problems in diagnosis and treatment. But other than that, why would it be anyone’s business?
I got passed over for the Naval Academy because I’m allergic to nuts - but I did pass the pee test with flying colors.
Incidentally, full hermaphroditism is vanishingly rare or nonexistent in humans. The term “intersex” covers a wide range of physical conditions of various kinds, ranging from the evident at birth to the apparent only at puberty, internal, invisible, and even genetic only.
The performance of genital modification on intersex infants and children is denounced by the intersex community as it is commonly invasive and humiliating (when procedures continue into the age of memory and when parents treat it as a big secret), is frequently arbitrary as to the physical sex assigned and reconstructed (which may well not concord to the child’s gender identity), and often eliminates healthy, sensitive tissue, with impact on the person’s later sex life.
The intersex community would prefer to see benign genital abnormalities dealt with by education and counseling, and not by surgery before the child is able to consent.
I don’t really know much about hermaphroditism, but my impression is that it can be due to a number of different causes and some of those can lead to other complications. Anything that could impede a recruits ability to serve will usually be a disqualification.
I am just giving this as a possible reason. It may very well be that the military just wants to keep the “freaks” out.
The list of possible complications on the intersex wikipedia article is basically just infertility and a marginally higher chance to develop some cancers. I suspect your latter explanation is the correct one.
Keeping the “freaks” out may be simply to avoid the muddying of a simple M or F designation. I can certainly see why institutions that rely on discipline and regulations would want a simple and clear answer to that question. There may be medical and intolerant reasons, too, but I think it could be argued that the long pole in the tent is for practical reasons. I’m not defending the military on this, just offering an alternative viewpoint.
Yes, it would add a layer of complications when determining whether a recruit bunks, showers, etc. with the women or the men, especially if the recruit’s dominant genitalia is at odds with their gender identity. Not to mention the issues of fraternization, harassment and rape, which are why the military separates male and female soldiers in the first place.
It is conceivable that someone with abnormal genitals, even after surgery to correct actual functional problems, may be either more prone to infections or may continue to have abnormal function that would be a problem to manage in a field combat situation. This is the same reason someone with, say, a mild physical problem/abnormality that is easily managed in a civilian setting may be barred from service as well. That, like severe uncorrected vision problems or impaired hearing, might not be obviously disqualifying to an outsider but in the combat environment it can quickly become a liability both to the individuals and others depending on him/her.
However, I strongly suspect “keep the freaks out” is a factor in many cases.
I think a lot of the time, people overestimate how much the military needs people. Keeping the freaks out has actual benefits, especially when they just don’t need you that badly. You could make similar arguments to let those with alopecia, flat feet, or eczema enlist.
Thanks to [b[Matt MCL** for saying all the stuff I came in to say.