[ExI] Personal Pronouns

[spike]

> ...On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Personal Pronouns
> 
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 9:42 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> > Please extropians, how does one define the terms man and woman?
> 
> What about XY and XX?
> 
> Stefano Vaj

Stefano, that will get you most of the way there, but doesn't explain what
to do with those with monosomy or trisomy that makes for ambiguous gender.
Agreed XXX can be considered female and XYY can be considered male, but what
of X0 (Turner's syndrome) and XXY, Klinefleter's syndrome?  Will these be
considered neither, either or both simultaneously?  What of those who are
born genetically unambiguous XX female but whose mother ingested medications
that caused the appearance of male genetalia?  If such a person has already
married an XX female, does that marriage become invalid?  What if the
marriage predates the passage of prop 8?  

Will all the possible variations of genetics be included in the state's
constitution?  Arguing that these cases are rare doesn't help, because most
cases that end up in law courts are rare, at least in some details.  What if
someone has had gender reassignment?  What if they had gender reassignment
at or immediately after birth?  Do we want all this stuff in the Taxifornia
state constitution?

If we wish to restrict marriage as an XX to an XY and tell all others to get
lost, what if someone has an organ implanted from an opposite gender donor?
What if a monosome or trisome person gets a tissue donation from an
unambiguous XX or XY donor, or both?  Can the genetic sample be taken from
the donated tissue?  Does the donated tissue need to be a major organ such
as a kidney or heart, or can it be a skin graft?  Can it be hair plugs?  If
so, must the hair plug be on the head?  Do we write all this into the state
constitution?  Seriously?  If we allow donated tissue to count as the
genetic marker, is blood considered a tissue when donated?  Is semen?  

Do we want to spell that out in all its gory detail in the state
constitution, or do we intentionally introduce ambiguous terms into the law
of the land?  This should be entertaining.  Actually no it isn't, it is
merely absurd, and government should have no involvement in the institution
of marriage, none.  I say give that over to religion incorporated and get
government out of that biz.  When I applied for a marriage license nearly 25
years ago, no one asked me to prove myself, no one asked my blushing bride
to prove her womanhood.  Had they done so, I might have applied for that job
at city hall.

spike