Is the Talmud based and transpilled?
In the Talmud, we see 6 (or 7, depending on how you count) different sexes mentioned. This seems much more progressive than our modern-day 2 gender binary. But is it really more progressive? Can we use these categories to say that the Talmud is 'inclusive' to trans and/or intersex people? Can we fit these different ideas of gender/biological sex into our modern day?
(כד) מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אֵיבַר זִכְרוּת וְאֵיבַר נְקֵבוּת הוּא הַנִּקְרָא אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס וְהוּא סָפֵק אִם זָכָר סָפֵק אִם נְקֵבָה. וְאֵין לוֹ סִימָן שֶׁיִּוָּדַע בּוֹ אִם הוּא זָכָר וַדַּאי אִם הִיא נְקֵבָה וַדָּאִית לְעוֹלָם:
(24) A person who possesses both a male sexual organ and a female sexual organ is called an androginos. There is doubt whether such a person should be classified as a male or as a female; there is no physical sign that can ever enable such a distinction to be made.
(כה) וְכָל מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ לֹא זִכְרוּת וְלֹא נְקֵבוּת אֶלָּא אָטוּם הוּא הַנִּקְרָא טֻמְטוּם וְגַם הוּא סָפֵק. וְאִם נִקְרַע הַטֻּמְטוּם וְנִמְצָא זָכָר הֲרֵי הוּא כְּזָכָר וַדַּאי. וְאִם נִמְצָא נְקֵבָה הֲרֵי הוּא נְקֵבָה. וְטֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס שֶׁהָיוּ בֶּן שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד הֲרֵי הֵן בְּחֶזְקַת גְּדוֹלִים וְהֵם שֶׁנְּדַבֵּר בָּהֶן בְּכָל מָקוֹם:
(25) A person who possesses neither a male sexual organ nor a female sexual organ, but instead, his genital area is a solid mass, is called a tumtum. There is also doubt with regard [to this person's status]. If an operation is carried out and a male [organ is revealed], he is definitely considered to be a male. If a female [organ is revealed], she is definitely considered to be a female.
When a tumtum or an androginos reaches the age of twelve years and one day, they are assumed to be adults. Whenever these terms are mentioned, the intent is individuals of this age.
אָמַר מָר: ״זְכוּרְךָ״, לְהוֹצִיא טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס. בִּשְׁלָמָא אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס — אִצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְאִית לֵיהּ צַד זַכְרוּת — לִיחַיַּיב, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דִּבְרִיָּה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ הוּא.
The Master said in the baraita: “Your males” comes to exclude a tumtum and an androginos. The Gemara asks: Granted, the exclusion of an androginos was necessary, as it could enter your mind to say that since he possesses an aspect of masculinity, i.e., he has a male sexual organ, he should be obligated like a male. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that an androginos is a being unto itself, which is neither male nor female.
(ד) טֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוּס הֲרֵי הֵן סָפֵק, נוֹתְנִין עֲלֵיהֶן חֻמְרֵי הָאִישׁ וְחֻמְרֵי הָאִשָּׁה בְּכָל מָקוֹם וְחַיָּבִים בַּכּל. וְאִם עָבְרוּ אֵינָם לוֹקִין:
(4) A tumtum and androginos, beings of doubtful sex, have the major responsibilities of both, men and women, of all commandments and are obliged to observe them all; nevertheless, if they violate any of them no stripes are inflicted.
(טז) אנדרוגינוס מוציא את מינו ואינו מוציא שאינו מינו טומטום אינו מוציא לא [מינו ולא] שאינו מינו.
(16) An androginos can absolve his own kind (i.e. say it for another androginos) of his obligation [of saying Birkat Hamazon (Grace After Meals)], but he cannot absolve [another person] who is not his own kind (i.e. a man, a woman or a tumtum). A tumtum cannot absolve neither his own kind (i.e. say it for another tumtum) of his obligation [of saying Birkat Hamazon], nor [another person] who is not his own kind (i.e. a man, a woman or an androginos).
(יג) וְאֵלּוּ הֵן סִימָנֵי סָרִיס. כָּל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ זָקָן. וּשְׂעָרוֹ לָקוּי. וּבְשָׂרוֹ מַחֲלִיק. וְאֵין מֵימֵי רַגְלָיו מַעֲלִים רְתִיחָה. וּכְשֶׁמֵּטִיל מַיִם אֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה כִּפָּה. וְשִׁכְבַת זַרְעוֹ דִּיהָה. וְאֵין מֵימֵי רַגְלָיו מַחְמִיצִין. וְרוֹחֵץ בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים וְאֵינוֹ מַעֲלֶה בְּשָׂרוֹ הֶבֶל. וְקוֹלוֹ לָקוּי וְאֵינוֹ נִכָּר בֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשָּׁה:
(יד) וְסָרִיס זֶה הוּא הַנִּקְרָא סְרִיס חַמָּה בְּכָל מָקוֹם. אֲבָל הַבֵּן שֶׁחָתְכוּ אוֹ נִתְּקוּ אוֹ מִעֲכוּ גִּידָיו אוֹ בֵּיצָיו כְּמוֹ שֶׁהָעַכּוּ''ם עוֹשִׂין הוּא הַנִּקְרָא סְרִיס אָדָם. וּכְשֶׁיִּהְיֶה בֶּן י''ג שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד נִקְרָא גָּדוֹל שֶׁאֵין זֶה מֵבִיא סִימָן לְעוֹלָם:
(13) These are the signs of impotency: a) One lacks a beard, b) his hair grows inadequately, c) his flesh is hairless, d) his urine does not produce vapor, e) his urine does not flow in an arc, f) his semen is off color, g) his urine does not ferment, h) when he washes in the winter, his flesh does not produce steam, and i) his voice is high pitched and cannot be differentiated from that of a woman.
(14) An impotent person of this type is referred to as a s'ris chamah [one who became impotent because of fever]. When, however, the genitals of a male have been cut, severed or crushed, as the gentiles do, the person is called a s'ris adam [one who became impotent as a result of human activity]. When such a person reaches the age of thirteen and one day, he is considered to be an adult, for he will never manifest signs of maturity.
saris chamah is translated here as one who has become impotent because of fever- it has also been translated as 'one who has become impotent/a eunuch because of the sun' or 'one who has become impotent/a eunuch at the time of seeing the sun.' This is understood to be someone who has become a saris through natural causes, as opposed to human intervention (saris adam)
(ו) וְאֵלּוּ הֵן סִימָנֵי אַיְלוֹנִית. כָּל שֶׁאֵין לָהּ דָּדִין. וּמִתְקַשָּׁה בִּשְׁעַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ. וְאֵין לָהּ שִׁפּוּלֵי מֵעַיִם כְּנָשִׁים. וְקוֹלָהּ עָבֶה וְאֵינָהּ נִכֶּרֶת בֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשָּׁה. וְהַנַּעֲרָה וְהַבּוֹגֶרֶת וְהָאַיְלוֹנִית כָּל אַחַת מִשְּׁלָשְׁתָּן נִקְרֵאת גְּדוֹלָה:
(6) The following are the physical signs of aylonit: a) she lacks [protruding] breasts; b) she stiffens during sexual relations; c) her lower abdomen does not resemble a woman's, d) her voice is deep and cannot be differentiated from that of a man.
All three, a maiden, a mature woman and a aylonit, are referred to by the term gedolah [adult woman]. [Unlike children, they are held responsible for their conduct.]
From Trans Talmud by Max K. Strassfeld: “[T]he very attempts to define what makes androgynes and eunuchs unique point to the changeability of bodies and to the way all bodies may refuse to develop in accordance with normative gendered expectations.”
REMAPPING THE ROAD FROM SINAI: A conversation between Rabbi Elliot Kukla and Judith Plaskow
In the Mishna, Rabbi Yossi says that the androgynos is neither essentially male nor female but a “created being of its own.” This phrase is a classical legal term for exceptionality; it is an acknowledgement that not all of creation can be understood within binary systems. In my reading, it is also a theological statement. It is a proclamation that God creates diversity that is far too complex for humans to understand or ever fully categorize. There are parts of each of us that are uncontainable. All of us — whether we see ourselves within or between male and female genders — are uniquely “created beings of our own.” This idea allows for infinite gender identities that are all created in the image of God....
— Elliot
Excerpted from Sh'ma December 1, 2007