Historic Classification of Sexual Ambiguity

Philosophy

When writing about actual intersex people (as opposed to mythic images) medieval authors of the 13th and 14th century ranged in tone from considering them monstrous aberrations, whose sexual activity could not be acceptable, to considering them natural variants, similar to twins and—and some opinions—no more varied from the norm (men) than women were. One key philosophical conflict was over whether someone who could not be clearly assigned to a physical sex and cultural gender could be categorized as “human.” This motivated an approach to intersexuality that it was a superficial defect, confusing the assignment of the individual’s “true” sex. There was no longer room for classifying people as a third category of “hermaphrodite” but only the need to determine the correct binary sex.

This approach drew on classical Greek and Arabic writings that were newly being disseminated. These interacted with the position of Roman and canon law regarding sex assignment. But these approaches were not consistent, beyond the recognition of only two sexes. Factors in category assignment might variously emphasize genital anatomy, sexual function, general appearance, personality, or even individual choice. In making the determination, individuals were slotted into a role that combined sexual identity, legal status, and social role.

The above summary is laid out in more detail in the following discussion, which traces the textual basis roughly chronologically.

The first set of texts to consider derived from Aristotle’s writings, especially his works on animals, which emphasized systematic and hierarchical classification. Hierarchy included the elevation of male (active, spiritual) over female (passive, “mere matter”). Female inferiority was a basic tenant and informed both his reasoning and conclusions. Females were asserted to be “deformed” males due to defects in the reproductive process, but Aristotle held that all creatures had a true underlying (binary) sex, even when they diverged from the expected form for that sex.

Another aspect of this hierarchical system was the assertion that “superior” species had differentiated sexes and produced live young, while lower organisms might be egg bearing, or lack sexual differentiation, or even reproduce asexually. Therefore humans—being the pinnacle of the natural world—must have distinct and differentiated sexes.

Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna) brought the most widely distributed Arabic philosophy on the topic, building on Greek writings but synthesized in different ways. This stream built on humoral theory, which held that an individual’s sexual expression resulted from their balance of qualities (hot, cold, wet, dry). Although this balance generally resulted in distinct categories of male and female (with their associated behavioral and social features), it also allowed for intermediate forms.

Without some of the peculiar fixations of Christian writers, Islamic medical and anatomical treatises described a variety of intersex conditions, as well as a recognition of feminine men and masculine women. That isn’t to say that the Islamic tradition had a consistent and unified approach, as authors drew from different sources and interpreted them in different ways. But in general, the attitude toward non-binary sexes was neutral and descriptive.

Western Europe had lost direct access to Greek texts in the earlier medieval period, having only those previously translated into Latin. Around the 11th to 12th centuries, Greek writings began to be circulated as translations of Arabic works (which had drawn directly from the Greek). This introduced more diverse ideas about gender, along with treatises of how gender was determined, which could include the production of intermediate bodies. [Note: It must be remembered that most of these theories and explanations have no correspondence with biological reality—and when they do, it is usually mere coincidence.] Explanations for non-binary bodies included humoral balance, the location in the uterus where the fetus grew, and the proportions of “male and female sperm” that contributed to conception.

As the Galenic tradition of humoral influence that had been introduced via Arabic sources was increasingly supplemented by new translations of Aristotle in the 13th century, the European consensus on intersexuality also shifted to an emphasis on the binary. Writers such as Albert the Great explored new theories of fetal development within a naturalist framework, distinguishing “monstrous births” from ideas about “monstrous races.” He also rejected myths in bestiaries about hermaphroditic animals such as hyenas and hares, not based on observation, but deriving from hierarchical principles. “Higher animals,” by his theory, could not exhibit non-binary sex, except as an individual defective birth, and therefore these bestiary stories must be rejected as impossible.

Intersex fetuses, by his theory, developed due to “excess matter” in the genital region, in the same way that excess matter could result in twins. He held that individuals who appeared to have both male and female genitals actually had only one functional organ—indicating their true sex—while the other was equivalent to a tumor. And yet he also suggested the possibility of a person having both types of functioning genitals, and having a “complexion of the heart” (personality and secondary characteristics) balanced between male and female.

If these two factors, which ordinarily would signal the person’s true sex, failed to provide a clear classification, presumably some other method must be found. Albert also hinted at the possibility of surgical “correction” in some cases, though this idea did not come to the fore until later.

Alexander of Hales approached the topic of sex difference from a more theological point of view. Why did God create two sexes when it would have been more perfect to have only one (i.e. male)? His answer was that it was more dignified to separate the active and passive elements, to avoid the “confusion” of mingling them in a single body. Further, by having two sexes in a hierarchical relationship, this provided a model for other essential hierarchies, such as Christ and the church. Under this understanding, intersex people represented the confusion of active and passive, which violated divine order.

Law

While philosophers could argue about the nature of sexual categories and their symbolic meanings, the law had more practical needs. Regardless of whether one accepted the reality of non-binary bodies, those bodies needed to be classified as either male or female under the law for the purposes of marriage, inheritance, the ability to testify in court, sex limited occupations such as the priesthood, and many other aspects. Some early Roman texts suggested that intersex infants represented such an ill omen that death was the necessary response, but in post-Republican times a more individual approach was taken, setting presidents that continued in medieval times. (Islamic and Jewish law debated the question of gendered status within systems that acknowledged non-binary categories.)

The Roman law tradition assigned legal sex on the basis of which sex predominated. This could mean either the appearance of the genitals, or how they were able to function. These treatises acknowledged “hermaphrodite” as a category separate from male and female, so the instructions had to do with the practicalities of category assimilation.

Although anatomy seems to have been the first priority, some authors instruct that social behavior—participating in gendered activities and associating with a specific gender—can be considered. The ability to grow a beard was also key. Another author says that if anatomy provided no clear guide, it was acceptable for the person to swear as to which sex they would perform, as long as there was no subsequent change. Individual legal cases can provide examples of how these factors played out in real life. There is some indication of a preference for assigning maleness in ambiguous cases, as it was the “superior” sex.

The matter of sticking to one sex, once classified, was not only a legal matter but a moral one. If a person acted sexually as a man at one time and as a woman at another time, then one of those acts was “unclean.”

[Note: This brings in several motifs relevant to lesbianism, such as the “enlarged clitoris” motif which, if used for penetration, is viewed as acting as a penis. More broadly, if attributes such as behavior, social performance, or personality can be evidence of one’s “true sex” in the presence of ambiguous anatomy, then they are also indications of gender even when there is no anatomical question. In this way, the treatment of intersex individuals helps make sense of how same-sex desire was treated as evidence of cross-gender identity.]