Forum:Adam as Intersexed

< Index | Religious discussion

I read somewhere a few months ago that the Book of Genesis can be interpreted as Adam being Intersexed or otherwise without sexual organs completely until Eve is created and so necessitating God to give him genitals (if Eve treated as not being initially planned, would Adam lack testicles?). Does anyone know if this is one of those old, minority Jewish beliefs that died off with the Second Temple or just the ramblings of a marriage equality group looking for biblical justification?-- Forerunner (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Update: I brought up marriage equality because the concept of "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" would be more complicated if a woman married an Intersexed person who identifies as male after a reassignment surgery.-- Forerunner (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It's easy to rewrite stories for the sake of whatever political or personal message you feel like endorsing, especially if you're willing to add to the narrative instead of just interpret. I feel like that's pretty much the entire history of theology in a bottle, there. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 16:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I'm not a religious expert.

From a quick cursory search on the subject, I think it's a highly minority view. The Jewish midrash (lit. "interpretation/exposition", a collection of early Jewish commentaries on the Tanakh) has a line that suggests that Adam was originally created intersex, as the Hebrew is ambiguous in gender up until Eve is created, when the language turns explicitly male and female (source). Some suggest that it may be a way of trying to reconcile issues of grammar in the original texts (source). It's been largely taken up as a banner by trans* and intersex groups nowadays, but considering the bizarre, hyperbolic, and contradictory nature of the midrash (source), as it was created by a lot of different Rabbis with different goals, I kind of doubt its significance. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not for or against the interpretation. I think it's a pretty interesting exercise that given any number of people in a room...the "right" idea about what the passages say is what the most people in the room seem to agree with. One would think an omniscient sky daddy would know how to word passages so everyone isn't guessing what it means for thousands of years. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)