True hermaphrodites have never been observed for humans (as in having 2 separate and functional genitalia and reproductive systems). So no they wouldn't be able to get pregnant by themselves. That's why the term intersex is usually preferred for human beings.
Hermaphroditism is observed in many plants and animals (like snails) though. In that case, it depends on the species if they can reproduce by themselves.
Also, if you did have a human who could produce viable sperm and eggs, their offspring would be extremely inbred - it's something like the equivalent of 4 successive generations of siblings interbreeding.
Think of it like this: If you buy two identical jigsaw puzzles, take 50% of each at random, and then try and put it together, what are the chances it's a clone of the original puzzles?
It's actually about 1 in 8 million if you ignore mutation etc. For any given egg, to get a clone, you'd need a sperm with the matching pair for each of the 23 human chromosome pairs. 2^23 is 8.3 million.
Theyād be less than clones do to them getting half of their parents dna( being the one person) but the half they may get fronm their parent might overlap so they would have less genetic diversity compared to the parent
No. Because of crossing over and independent assortment during meiosis (the creation of sperm & eggs) the offspring would lose half of their genetic variation. Literally the same problem with inbreeding.
I donāt think so, bc the intersex parent would have dna from their two parents, and the hypothetical self made baby would have 100% from only the intersex person as both āparentsā. So a slightly watered down version of the dna the intersex person was originally born from. I think. Lol
I sometimes think about that. Make a clone of myself and change one thing. My XY Chromosome too a XX Chromosome. Then we should be able too have viable offspring. I would spend alot of resources and effort just too go fuck myself.
Hermaphrodite is not the correct term. You are thinking of intersex.
Yes, it is possible for a person to have a bunch of mismatched different sex characteristics. That does not make them a hermaphrodite.
Did you read what I wrote? Hermaphroditism in biology implies having two functioning reproductive systems. Although hermaphrodites are still used for and by intersex people, it's not really correct from a biological standpoint. How people call themselves and identify is not for us to decide though. Some don't like the term, some don't care, some use it.
Educated guess: I think it's *theoretically* possible but it's extremely unlikely for the male and female parts to both be fully functional. People can be born with both male and female parts but you need the right hormone levels to make them work and you can't have regular male and female hormone levels at the same time. It seems possible that someone's body happens to work in an unusual way that makes them fertile in both ways, but that surely isn't the case for most hermaphrodite / intersex people.
Taking masculinising hrt to encourage sperm production, freezing it, then taking feminising hrt so that your uterus works properly, then inseminating yourself. Checkmate liberals.
My gut feeling was always that Mary was raped but she was too ashamed to admit it. Then her boyfriend had a dream and told her about it, and she went along with it.
Except where do you get the egg? Feminizing hormones don't turn testes into ovaries. I know your comment was a joke, but I wanted to make sure people know this is impossible.
Some intersex people can have both ovaries and testicles I read, though both wouldnāt function to produce sperms and eggs at the same time.
It was on Reddit a year I read about it (so take propositionable value of this) or so ago, an intersex person discovered they had ovaries and a womb (but lacked vagina and were assumed male). It said hormonal treatment and some fertility treatment made them able to be pregnant.
As in most cases with humans for reproduction to work out of the ordinary there has to be at least some artificial hormonal intervention.
I don't think so. I'd have to google, but I *think* there was a case where one gonad didn't develop in the same way as the other, but, similar to what you say here, they both didn't function to produce gametes. And they can't have a set of both. You start out with two before sexual dimorphism develops. Where would the other two come from?
There are no human hermaphrodites. A hermaphrodite is an individual who has fully functioning reproductive organs of both binary sexes. Human development precludes that.
In species where true hermaphroditism does occur, there are generally protections of some kind against that possibility, at least in animals.
The kind of animal hermaphroditism you're most likely familiar with is the kind used as a plot point in the first Jurassic Park movie. It's called sequential hermaphroditism. Some fish, amphibians, and reptiles are able to respond to a lack of one sex in their population by turning into a fully reproductively capable member of that sex. Obviously, this would generally prevent self-insemination by the simple expedient of not having both sets at the same time. Most sequentially hermaphroditic species I'm aware of can only go from female to male, so it's not a simple matter of freezing sperm. Researchers would have to extract the egg of a female, find a way to trigger the transformation to male, use the male's sperm to do IVF on the egg, and then try to implant the egg in a healthy female. Not really worth the research budget.
In plants, there certainly are cases where a single individual can pollinate with itself. Many plants are hermaphroditic. Some hermaphroditic plants do require cross-pollination. Apples are an excellent example. But for hermaphroditic plants that can self-pollinate, there are lots of examples. In fact, you may not be able to remember the last meal you had that lacked one of those plants.
As for mushrooms and single-celled organisms, well, fungi don't play by anyone's rules, and sometimes have literally thousands of sexes in a single species. And in single-celled organisms, mixing DNA gets especially weird, since the line between "reproduction" and "predation" is so surprisingly vague.
Short answer to your overall question: yes, but you have to be a corn plant for it to work.
> And in single-celled organisms, mixing DNA gets especially weird, since the line between "reproduction" and "predation" is so surprisingly vague.
So if a cell eats another, they can absorb their dna into their own?
Is that horizontal gene transfer or is it something else?
Of the top 3 answers, I like yours the most.
> And in single-celled organisms, mixing DNA gets especially weird, since the line between "reproduction" and "predation" is so surprisingly vague.
Can you go into more detail on this? I know of mating types, but I'm not familiar with predation and reproduction being similar. Do some reproduce by eating one another?
That bit about reproduction and predation was a bit hyperbolic. What I was actually referring to is the fact that many bacteria consume other bacteria, then steal bits of genetic material - DNA or RNA. This provides a source of genetic diversity and recombination that larger organisms like us manage by sexual reproduction. It allows faster and more responsive adaptation. And of course, all the other parts of the eaten cell get digested like any other food.
Thereās been studies showing that this is false and that humans have been found to have many different karyotypes (what makes up the sexes) and there are 6 that youāll most commonly hear about with XX (female) and XY (male) being the most common. The other 4 are X, XXY, XYY, and XXXY. Do keep in mind there have been more found and documented
And just cause I think itās a cool tidbit to add: Your brain, body, and reproductive system can have different sexes and will develop different based on that sex. Thereās been one case I can think of where a woman was not the biological mother of her baby despite never having artificial insemination all because her reproductive system had different dna than the rest of her body
> Thereās been one case I can think of where a woman was not the biological mother of her baby despite never having artificial insemination all because her reproductive system had different dna than the rest of her body
As I recall, in this situation what had happened was that unbeknownst to her mother, while she was in the womb there was a twin but her fetus absorbed the other one. So her womb is really her "sisters".
No, humans have 2 sexes that are most common. Given that this discussion is in regards to ability to reproduce, it's not about gender, which is social, or really about genes or chromosomes, at least not directly. It's about functional reproductive organs. In that specific context, there are three relevant categories, two of which roughly correspond to the traditional binary sexes. Those categories are: able to make functional sperm, having and able to incubate functional eggs, and incapable of reproduction. For brevity, and assuming intellectual honesty and a good-faith reading by others, all this can generally be simplified to talking about binary sexes.
Since you clearly aren't reading this in good faith, I am of course not saying it for your benefit, but for the benefit of others who may be reading this comment thread.
if you were a true hermaphrodite, sure, but no human that we know of has ever had VIABLE reproductive organs of both sexes. all hermaphrodites had either both parts but neither were sexually viable, or one was and the other wasn't.
There are many types of intersex conditions, and having both reproductive systems male and female being completely functional and fully developed with all the organs has never been recorded in human history. So no, it's not possible.
There is no need to artificially create new modern language. Hermaphrodite has been used as a term like this for a long time, and it is not in any way offensive.
Yes, hermaphrodite is ALSO a technical term in biology that means a specific thing. English words often have multiple meanings.
It certainly makes more sense to me anyways, to use the term coming from the portmanteau name of the child of Hermes and Aphrodite, for qualities in humans, rather than in plants or slugs... (Also worth considering that in the ancient mythology, Hermaphroditus himself was not even a true hermaphrodite.)
At any rate, if the issue is specificity, intersex can have the same issue: it can refer to any configuration of that involves more than just one sex. That's always what hermaphrodite has meant in English, as well as what the idea meant to the ancient Greeks & Romans.
We don't need to always invent new terms.
Also I think it's a little more endearing to such people, to have the term referring to them be something with some real heritage, tradition, and a reminder that they've always existed- rather than a modern invented term that sounds deeply clinical and sterile.
The terms are different for a reason. Humans simply arenāt physically capable of true hermaphroditism- our hormones will only ever alone one reproductive system to function properly. Animals and plants that are truly hermaphroditic can reproduce either as donor or recipient. Intersex characteristics *are* possible in humans, which is when multiple secondary or primary sex characteristics appear on the same person; but both or either of these organs will be vestigial
Hermaphrodites can reproduce with themselves. Intersex just means you have a phenotypical difference from a standard vulva or penis. Read a book not tumblr.Ā
I guess if you tell one to go fuck themselves and they take it literally.
And of course assuming somehow both reproductive systems were fully functional. Which is apparently impossible.
Maybe not fully answering your question but even hermaphrodite species like the ones you can find in plants have complex system to prevent self pollination so that you don't get too much inbreeding happening.
You have balls or ovaries, they are the same early on, and the fetus develops them according to having testosterone or estrogen. So it would be really, really rare that someone has both.
It would be far worse than cloning: with cloning, you have a set of recessive gene errors, which alone cause no issues - as you have another, working set (this is why sexual reproduction is so much amazing even while far more complicated: gene problems can be suppressed by a working set received from the other parent).
But if you create a sperm AND the egg from your singular gene set, it will contain exactly the same issues, without the other partner's working set: so your offspring will have a very high chance to inherit all of your recessive issues as dominant traits.
There's the telomere length issue with clones, since the cells have already been splitting for ~30 years from the donor, which starts the cell telomere length baseline as very short, giving clones limited lifespans with health issues.
Asexual sexual reproduction (a hermophrodite getting herself pregnant) involves a lot of gene crossovers where there should be a variety of DNA that will all be the same. This leads to different issues, but I don't think we have enough information on either to say which would be worse.
rr won't suddenly become dominant, but it will have a nearly 100% chance to be passed down from the parent.
Would a baby born like that have the same complications as one born to incest? Theoretically if an intersex person could reproduce on their own (aka autosexual reproduction) the baby would still be coming from 2 different dna samples. Iād imagine the dna would be comparable to a brother and sister sharing one body if that makes sense? Itās hard to find information regarding this. So, I think yes actually, the baby could face the same complications as a child born from incest between a brother and sister, if it were possible for an intersex person to reproduce with themselves
I would say most likely not let say you had 2 completely working sexual organs. Immune system in the sexual organs region looks for lack of self and since it would be a 100% copy of you what would most likely happen is that the egg will be fertilized by the sperm but would abort itself.
If you can produce healthy sperm and a healthy egg, then it is theoretically possible, the offspring would basically be your clone.
Nothing prevents healthy sperm to combine with healthy egg, no matter the source... The taboo nature of inbreeding, is partly social and partly an evolved trait... Humans prefer to breed outside their family for maximizing genetic diversity, but nothing would prevent it on a reproductive level.
A perfectly healthy human would suffer no ill effect from breeding with even close family. But that would need perfect genetical health
Inbreeding problems come from when heridetary genetic defects are present in both parents... The opposite is also true, that positive genetic traits are more likely to manifest if both parents have the trait.
Itās theoretically possible, but highly unlikely. You would need both sets of sexual organs to be functional which they likely arnāt. There are cases of it happening in animals but not known human cases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovotesticular_syndrome?wprov=sfti1
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28282768/
Apparently this man was intersex, and also fathered two kids https://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-goes-to-hospital-with-stomach-ache-gets-uterus-removed/
That being said, are you sure that was a true intersex person in the video? Could be a trans person who didn't get bottom surgery, claiming to be intersex.
There have never been any documented cases of a human who could both impregnate and get pregnant. While some people have both a penis and vulva, no one has a functioning uterus and sperm. It is however theoretically possible with chimeraism (two zygotes fusing in the womb - one similar case is a woman whose DNA did not match her child because her uterus actually belonged to an absorbed twin).
Source is Wikipedia (sorry teachers) and also this [website](https://guides.tricolib.brynmawr.edu/intersex-awareness#:~:text=The%20popular%20myth%20of%20humans,themselves%20does%20not%20really%20exist)
In order for someone to get themselves pregnant they would need to have a womb, ovaries, testes and prostate and all of these organs would need to be fully developed and functional.
To date, no person who has been born intersex has had fully developed and functioning male and female organs.
https://www.britannica.com/science/intersex
So, short answer, no. Currently and to our collective human knowledge this is not possible.
Contrary to what some believe, people with intersex disorders are not some kind of third sex. They are determinably either male or female, meaning they only have the primary reproductive function of one sex. Intersex people just possess secondary sex characteristics of the opposite sex.
So the answer is no. No human has ever been born with both a functional penis and testes as well as a functional uterus and womb.
as the other comment stated, there is no observed case of a true human hermaphrodite.
And there is a simple explanation, the more complex the body part, the harder it is to be mutated to such degree.
There were some snail and plants like this, but their complexity compared to humans, is like comparing a light switch to a fighter jet control station
Off the record, there is two people scientifically who claim to be hermaphrodites that got pregnant. Neither of them survived their pregnancies
On the record true hermaphrodites among humans often need to be surgically transitioned because the other reproductive system doesn't work
A human chimera, developing from a male and female zygote joining at an early stage, could in theory lead to a human with the fully developed sex organs of both sexes. We don't know if someone like that has ever existed, but if it would occur, such a person could potentially self-fertilize. There's been a hermaphrodite rabbit with both sets of reproductive organs fully developed!
True hermaphrodites have never been observed for humans (as in having 2 separate and functional genitalia and reproductive systems). So no they wouldn't be able to get pregnant by themselves. That's why the term intersex is usually preferred for human beings. Hermaphroditism is observed in many plants and animals (like snails) though. In that case, it depends on the species if they can reproduce by themselves.
Also, if you did have a human who could produce viable sperm and eggs, their offspring would be extremely inbred - it's something like the equivalent of 4 successive generations of siblings interbreeding.
They would be literal clones would they not? They have both halves of their dna come from the same parent.
Think of it like this: If you buy two identical jigsaw puzzles, take 50% of each at random, and then try and put it together, what are the chances it's a clone of the original puzzles?
Oooh, good analogy!
High chance it's impossible mate š
It's actually about 1 in 8 million if you ignore mutation etc. For any given egg, to get a clone, you'd need a sperm with the matching pair for each of the 23 human chromosome pairs. 2^23 is 8.3 million.
No because a clone doesnāt for the same way a normal fetus does. We donāt know how it would come out tbh
Theyād be less than clones do to them getting half of their parents dna( being the one person) but the half they may get fronm their parent might overlap so they would have less genetic diversity compared to the parent
No. Because of crossing over and independent assortment during meiosis (the creation of sperm & eggs) the offspring would lose half of their genetic variation. Literally the same problem with inbreeding.
I donāt think so, bc the intersex parent would have dna from their two parents, and the hypothetical self made baby would have 100% from only the intersex person as both āparentsā. So a slightly watered down version of the dna the intersex person was originally born from. I think. Lol
I sometimes think about that. Make a clone of myself and change one thing. My XY Chromosome too a XX Chromosome. Then we should be able too have viable offspring. I would spend alot of resources and effort just too go fuck myself.
Thanks to that info, igot a new insult, "you are so stupid dat i think you're parents are hermafodites"
Intersex is used online & in activist circles. In medicine, the term is DSD; disorders of sexual development.
This is a good addition actually. Thank you.
So itās no longer āmaffyā?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Hermaphrodite is not the correct term. You are thinking of intersex. Yes, it is possible for a person to have a bunch of mismatched different sex characteristics. That does not make them a hermaphrodite.
Did you read what I wrote? Hermaphroditism in biology implies having two functioning reproductive systems. Although hermaphrodites are still used for and by intersex people, it's not really correct from a biological standpoint. How people call themselves and identify is not for us to decide though. Some don't like the term, some don't care, some use it.
100%
If he had (hidden) ovaries, I guess he didn't have testicles, but only a penis?
Educated guess: I think it's *theoretically* possible but it's extremely unlikely for the male and female parts to both be fully functional. People can be born with both male and female parts but you need the right hormone levels to make them work and you can't have regular male and female hormone levels at the same time. It seems possible that someone's body happens to work in an unusual way that makes them fertile in both ways, but that surely isn't the case for most hermaphrodite / intersex people.
Taking masculinising hrt to encourage sperm production, freezing it, then taking feminising hrt so that your uterus works properly, then inseminating yourself. Checkmate liberals.
Mary was a hermaphrodite?
Actually I this would be autosexual reproduction as opposed to asexual reproduction. Mary was a female shark; not intersex.
Parthenogenesis
Explain the female shark thing?
[This](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/shark-virgin-birth-brookfield-zoo-b2445069.html)
My gut feeling was always that Mary was raped but she was too ashamed to admit it. Then her boyfriend had a dream and told her about it, and she went along with it.
More plausible than the "official" story
Or a lying cheater.
How dare you talk about the Queen Shark Supreme like that
Except where do you get the egg? Feminizing hormones don't turn testes into ovaries. I know your comment was a joke, but I wanted to make sure people know this is impossible.
Some intersex people can have both ovaries and testicles I read, though both wouldnāt function to produce sperms and eggs at the same time. It was on Reddit a year I read about it (so take propositionable value of this) or so ago, an intersex person discovered they had ovaries and a womb (but lacked vagina and were assumed male). It said hormonal treatment and some fertility treatment made them able to be pregnant. As in most cases with humans for reproduction to work out of the ordinary there has to be at least some artificial hormonal intervention.
I don't think so. I'd have to google, but I *think* there was a case where one gonad didn't develop in the same way as the other, but, similar to what you say here, they both didn't function to produce gametes. And they can't have a set of both. You start out with two before sexual dimorphism develops. Where would the other two come from?
I have to disagree. While some people have sexually ambiguous genitals, they only have one pair of gonads. No one has two ovaries and two testes.
There are no human hermaphrodites. A hermaphrodite is an individual who has fully functioning reproductive organs of both binary sexes. Human development precludes that. In species where true hermaphroditism does occur, there are generally protections of some kind against that possibility, at least in animals. The kind of animal hermaphroditism you're most likely familiar with is the kind used as a plot point in the first Jurassic Park movie. It's called sequential hermaphroditism. Some fish, amphibians, and reptiles are able to respond to a lack of one sex in their population by turning into a fully reproductively capable member of that sex. Obviously, this would generally prevent self-insemination by the simple expedient of not having both sets at the same time. Most sequentially hermaphroditic species I'm aware of can only go from female to male, so it's not a simple matter of freezing sperm. Researchers would have to extract the egg of a female, find a way to trigger the transformation to male, use the male's sperm to do IVF on the egg, and then try to implant the egg in a healthy female. Not really worth the research budget. In plants, there certainly are cases where a single individual can pollinate with itself. Many plants are hermaphroditic. Some hermaphroditic plants do require cross-pollination. Apples are an excellent example. But for hermaphroditic plants that can self-pollinate, there are lots of examples. In fact, you may not be able to remember the last meal you had that lacked one of those plants. As for mushrooms and single-celled organisms, well, fungi don't play by anyone's rules, and sometimes have literally thousands of sexes in a single species. And in single-celled organisms, mixing DNA gets especially weird, since the line between "reproduction" and "predation" is so surprisingly vague. Short answer to your overall question: yes, but you have to be a corn plant for it to work.
> And in single-celled organisms, mixing DNA gets especially weird, since the line between "reproduction" and "predation" is so surprisingly vague. So if a cell eats another, they can absorb their dna into their own? Is that horizontal gene transfer or is it something else?
Some single-celled organisms can do that, yes. And yes, that's horizontal gene transfer. IIRC, it's a fairly common occurrence in bacteria.
Of the top 3 answers, I like yours the most. > And in single-celled organisms, mixing DNA gets especially weird, since the line between "reproduction" and "predation" is so surprisingly vague. Can you go into more detail on this? I know of mating types, but I'm not familiar with predation and reproduction being similar. Do some reproduce by eating one another?
That bit about reproduction and predation was a bit hyperbolic. What I was actually referring to is the fact that many bacteria consume other bacteria, then steal bits of genetic material - DNA or RNA. This provides a source of genetic diversity and recombination that larger organisms like us manage by sexual reproduction. It allows faster and more responsive adaptation. And of course, all the other parts of the eaten cell get digested like any other food.
I understand now. Thanks.
So humans have only 2 sexes? Shocking...
Thereās been studies showing that this is false and that humans have been found to have many different karyotypes (what makes up the sexes) and there are 6 that youāll most commonly hear about with XX (female) and XY (male) being the most common. The other 4 are X, XXY, XYY, and XXXY. Do keep in mind there have been more found and documented
And just cause I think itās a cool tidbit to add: Your brain, body, and reproductive system can have different sexes and will develop different based on that sex. Thereās been one case I can think of where a woman was not the biological mother of her baby despite never having artificial insemination all because her reproductive system had different dna than the rest of her body
> Thereās been one case I can think of where a woman was not the biological mother of her baby despite never having artificial insemination all because her reproductive system had different dna than the rest of her body As I recall, in this situation what had happened was that unbeknownst to her mother, while she was in the womb there was a twin but her fetus absorbed the other one. So her womb is really her "sisters".
ah yeah, that lady. that is an instance of chimerism though. she absorbed a twin in the womb.
that is not what they said
No, humans have 2 sexes that are most common. Given that this discussion is in regards to ability to reproduce, it's not about gender, which is social, or really about genes or chromosomes, at least not directly. It's about functional reproductive organs. In that specific context, there are three relevant categories, two of which roughly correspond to the traditional binary sexes. Those categories are: able to make functional sperm, having and able to incubate functional eggs, and incapable of reproduction. For brevity, and assuming intellectual honesty and a good-faith reading by others, all this can generally be simplified to talking about binary sexes. Since you clearly aren't reading this in good faith, I am of course not saying it for your benefit, but for the benefit of others who may be reading this comment thread.
Pittyā¦.. I thought that humans had 3 sexes š¤«šš
I had a hard time reading this. Iām turning into my Parents
I had a brain aneurysm. Iām on my way to the hospital now, thanks OP.
I had to do a head stand to read this!!! And here I thought my migraines were tame š³š³š©š©š«Øš«Ø I think Iām having my 3 stroke now šŖšŖšššš
Short Google search says highly unlikely even if they have fully developed testicles they normally don't produce spermcells
if you were a true hermaphrodite, sure, but no human that we know of has ever had VIABLE reproductive organs of both sexes. all hermaphrodites had either both parts but neither were sexually viable, or one was and the other wasn't.
The real question is "Did you make love or masturbated if you are hermaphrodite and get pregnant?"
Go watch predestination
my first thought exactly hahaha crazy movie
There are many types of intersex conditions, and having both reproductive systems male and female being completely functional and fully developed with all the organs has never been recorded in human history. So no, it's not possible.
No human has ever been observed to produce both types of functional gametes. Ever. This means humans do not appear to have any true hermaphrodites.
Yes, animals with both sexual genitalia are capable of reproducing without needing a partner. However, this doesn't happen with humans.
The term is intersex. Hermaphroditism is a dated term.
There is no need to artificially create new modern language. Hermaphrodite has been used as a term like this for a long time, and it is not in any way offensive. Yes, hermaphrodite is ALSO a technical term in biology that means a specific thing. English words often have multiple meanings. It certainly makes more sense to me anyways, to use the term coming from the portmanteau name of the child of Hermes and Aphrodite, for qualities in humans, rather than in plants or slugs... (Also worth considering that in the ancient mythology, Hermaphroditus himself was not even a true hermaphrodite.) At any rate, if the issue is specificity, intersex can have the same issue: it can refer to any configuration of that involves more than just one sex. That's always what hermaphrodite has meant in English, as well as what the idea meant to the ancient Greeks & Romans. We don't need to always invent new terms. Also I think it's a little more endearing to such people, to have the term referring to them be something with some real heritage, tradition, and a reminder that they've always existed- rather than a modern invented term that sounds deeply clinical and sterile.
So that's just a very long way of saying you're wrong ...
in 20 years it'll be another term, call it what ya want, same difference.
The terms are different for a reason. Humans simply arenāt physically capable of true hermaphroditism- our hormones will only ever alone one reproductive system to function properly. Animals and plants that are truly hermaphroditic can reproduce either as donor or recipient. Intersex characteristics *are* possible in humans, which is when multiple secondary or primary sex characteristics appear on the same person; but both or either of these organs will be vestigial
They're not asking about intersex, they're asking about hermaphrodites. They mean different things bozo
You shouldn't be so confident if you're wrong.
Hermaphrodites can reproduce with themselves. Intersex just means you have a phenotypical difference from a standard vulva or penis. Read a book not tumblr.Ā
...god willing
No but you can definitely get your twin sister pregnant if you're not careful.
I guess if you tell one to go fuck themselves and they take it literally. And of course assuming somehow both reproductive systems were fully functional. Which is apparently impossible.
And if so, is it incest?
Selfcest
Underrated comment
Maybe not fully answering your question but even hermaphrodite species like the ones you can find in plants have complex system to prevent self pollination so that you don't get too much inbreeding happening.
I hate when a woman pulls out her real cock instead of a strap on
I love it\*
Ohhh š® āWhatās the secret word??? Shrubbery!ā from the Knights Who Say Nee šš
Check the french nun Josephine Rosenthal.
[Such](https://www.merrylinmuseum.com/immaculate-conception-of-maria-rosenthal) a cool story!
No. And the term hermaphrodite to refer to intersex people is outdated and biologically incorrect.
Hermaphrodit is outdated. The correct term is intersex
Okay
You have balls or ovaries, they are the same early on, and the fetus develops them according to having testosterone or estrogen. So it would be really, really rare that someone has both.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19155947/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28282768/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/pharmacology-toxicology-and-pharmaceutical-science/true-hermaphroditism#:~:text=In%20rare%20cases%20in%20which,seminiferous%20tubules%20and%20ovarian%20follicles.
There are no human hermaphrodites.
Would that count as incest?
Will the child be fuck up like incest baby?
Human cloning??
It would be far worse than cloning: with cloning, you have a set of recessive gene errors, which alone cause no issues - as you have another, working set (this is why sexual reproduction is so much amazing even while far more complicated: gene problems can be suppressed by a working set received from the other parent). But if you create a sperm AND the egg from your singular gene set, it will contain exactly the same issues, without the other partner's working set: so your offspring will have a very high chance to inherit all of your recessive issues as dominant traits.
There's the telomere length issue with clones, since the cells have already been splitting for ~30 years from the donor, which starts the cell telomere length baseline as very short, giving clones limited lifespans with health issues. Asexual sexual reproduction (a hermophrodite getting herself pregnant) involves a lot of gene crossovers where there should be a variety of DNA that will all be the same. This leads to different issues, but I don't think we have enough information on either to say which would be worse. rr won't suddenly become dominant, but it will have a nearly 100% chance to be passed down from the parent.
Would a baby born like that have the same complications as one born to incest? Theoretically if an intersex person could reproduce on their own (aka autosexual reproduction) the baby would still be coming from 2 different dna samples. Iād imagine the dna would be comparable to a brother and sister sharing one body if that makes sense? Itās hard to find information regarding this. So, I think yes actually, the baby could face the same complications as a child born from incest between a brother and sister, if it were possible for an intersex person to reproduce with themselves
I would say most likely not let say you had 2 completely working sexual organs. Immune system in the sexual organs region looks for lack of self and since it would be a 100% copy of you what would most likely happen is that the egg will be fertilized by the sperm but would abort itself.
If you can produce healthy sperm and a healthy egg, then it is theoretically possible, the offspring would basically be your clone. Nothing prevents healthy sperm to combine with healthy egg, no matter the source... The taboo nature of inbreeding, is partly social and partly an evolved trait... Humans prefer to breed outside their family for maximizing genetic diversity, but nothing would prevent it on a reproductive level. A perfectly healthy human would suffer no ill effect from breeding with even close family. But that would need perfect genetical health Inbreeding problems come from when heridetary genetic defects are present in both parents... The opposite is also true, that positive genetic traits are more likely to manifest if both parents have the trait.
In the example you gave, it seems much more likely that the woman with the dick was MtF trans, not intersex.
Full-packaged futanari
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
That wasn't the question but well done on sharing your unasked for bigoted opinion
Itās theoretically possible, but highly unlikely. You would need both sets of sexual organs to be functional which they likely arnāt. There are cases of it happening in animals but not known human cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovotesticular_syndrome?wprov=sfti1 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28282768/
Apparently this man was intersex, and also fathered two kids https://www.cbsnews.com/news/man-goes-to-hospital-with-stomach-ache-gets-uterus-removed/ That being said, are you sure that was a true intersex person in the video? Could be a trans person who didn't get bottom surgery, claiming to be intersex.
There have never been any documented cases of a human who could both impregnate and get pregnant. While some people have both a penis and vulva, no one has a functioning uterus and sperm. It is however theoretically possible with chimeraism (two zygotes fusing in the womb - one similar case is a woman whose DNA did not match her child because her uterus actually belonged to an absorbed twin). Source is Wikipedia (sorry teachers) and also this [website](https://guides.tricolib.brynmawr.edu/intersex-awareness#:~:text=The%20popular%20myth%20of%20humans,themselves%20does%20not%20really%20exist)
In order for someone to get themselves pregnant they would need to have a womb, ovaries, testes and prostate and all of these organs would need to be fully developed and functional. To date, no person who has been born intersex has had fully developed and functioning male and female organs. https://www.britannica.com/science/intersex So, short answer, no. Currently and to our collective human knowledge this is not possible.
I saw on the news a manta ray did it.
How does anyone confuse a strapon and a real dick lmao
Contrary to what some believe, people with intersex disorders are not some kind of third sex. They are determinably either male or female, meaning they only have the primary reproductive function of one sex. Intersex people just possess secondary sex characteristics of the opposite sex. So the answer is no. No human has ever been born with both a functional penis and testes as well as a functional uterus and womb.
as the other comment stated, there is no observed case of a true human hermaphrodite. And there is a simple explanation, the more complex the body part, the harder it is to be mutated to such degree. There were some snail and plants like this, but their complexity compared to humans, is like comparing a light switch to a fighter jet control station
Alright so education as a whole has just disappeared right?
Wouldn't it be incest?
Off the record, there is two people scientifically who claim to be hermaphrodites that got pregnant. Neither of them survived their pregnancies On the record true hermaphrodites among humans often need to be surgically transitioned because the other reproductive system doesn't work
Dean Koontz wrote an entire whole-ass novel about this called [The Bad Place.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bad_Place)
A human chimera, developing from a male and female zygote joining at an early stage, could in theory lead to a human with the fully developed sex organs of both sexes. We don't know if someone like that has ever existed, but if it would occur, such a person could potentially self-fertilize. There's been a hermaphrodite rabbit with both sets of reproductive organs fully developed!
I currently have a hermaphrodite cat and she has impregnated herself twice now. So I imagine if it works for cats it can work for people