Although I'm not certain this is a "GLBT" issue per se, this seemed like the best place to put it. We no longer have our Humanities forum...
Insisting there are only two human sexes erases the existence of intersexuals.
Two Sexes Are Not Enough
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/gender/fs.html
European and American culture is deeply devoted to the idea that there are only two sexes. Even our language refuses other possibilities; thus to write about Levi Suydam I have had to invent conventions -- s/he and h/er to denote individuals who are clearly neither/both male and female or who are, perhaps, both at once. Nor is the linguistic convenience an idle fancy. Whether one falls into the category of man or woman matters in concrete ways. For Suydam -- and still today for women in some parts of the world -- it meant the right to vote. It might mean being subject to the military draft and to various laws concerning the family and marriage. In many parts of the United States, for example, two individuals legally registered as men cannot have sexual relations without breaking antisodomy laws.
But if the state and legal system has an interest in maintaining only two sexes, our collective biological bodies do not. While male and female stand on the extreme ends of a biological continuum, there are many other bodies, bodies such as Suydam's, that evidently mix together anatomical components conventionally attributed to both males and females. The implications of my argument for a sexual continuum are profound. If nature really offers us more than two sexes, then it follows that our current notions of masculinity and femininity are cultural conceits. Reconceptualizing the category of "sex" challenges cherished aspects of European and American social organization.
Indeed, we have begun to insist on the male-female dichotomy at increasingly early stages, making the two-sex system more deeply a part of how we imagine human life and giving it the appearance of being both inborn and natural. Nowadays, months before the child leaves the comfort of the womb, amniocentesis and ultrasound identify a fetus's sex. Parents can decorate the baby's room in gender-appropriate style, sports wallpaper -- in blue -- for the little boy, flowered designs -- in pink -- for the little girl. Researchers have nearly completed development of technology that can choose the sex of a child at the moment of fertilization. Moreover, modern surgical techniques help maintain the two-sex system. Today children who are born "either/or -- neither/both" -- a fairly common phenomenon -- usually disappear from view because doctors "correct" them right away with surgery. In the past, however, intersexuals (or hermaphrodites, as they were called until recently), were culturally acknowledged.
In 1993 I published a modest proposal suggesting that we replace our two-sex system with a five-sex one. In addition to males and females, I argued, we should also accept the categories herms (named after "true" hermaphrodites), merms (named after male "pseudohermaphrodites"), and ferms (named after female "pseudohermaphrodites"). [Editor's note: A "true" hermaphrodite bears an ovary and a testis, or a combined gonad called an ovo-testis. A "pseudohermaphrodite" has either an ovary or a testis, along with genitals from the "opposite" sex.] I'd intended to be provocative, but I had also been writing tongue in cheek and so was surprised by the extent of the controversy the article unleashed. Right-wing Christians somehow connected my idea of five sexes to the United Nations-sponsored Fourth World Conference on Women, to be held in Beijing two years later, apparently seeing some sort of global conspiracy at work. "It is maddening," says the text of a New York Times advertisement paid for by the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, "to listen to discussions of 'five genders' when every sane person knows there are but two sexes, both of which are rooted in nature."
[snip]
How many genders are there? (I am differentiating gender as a cultural role from sex as a biological category.)
Many cultures had three or four or five, besides the two we normally think of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender
Examples of third genders in many cultures include the Hijras of India, the Kathoeys of Thailand, the Winktes/Two-Spirits/"Berdaches" of Lakota Culture, and the Fa'afine of Polynesia.
Binary thinking limits our understanding. There are more than two sexes, and more than two genders.
Full Version: How Many Sexes Are There?
Feminist Perspectives on Sex and Gender
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/
Biological Determinism
Most people ordinarily seem to think that sex and gender are coextensive: women are human females, men are human males. Many feminists have historically disagreed and have endorsed the sex/ gender distinction. Provisionally: ‘sex’ denotes human females and males depending on biological features (chromosomes, sex organs, hormones and other physical features); ‘gender’ denotes women and men depending on social factors (social role, position, behaviour or identity). The main feminist motivation for making this distinction was to counter biological determinism or the view that biology is destiny.
A typical example of a biological determinist view is that of Geddes and Thompson who, in 1889, argued that social, psychological and behavioural traits were caused by metabolic state. Women supposedly conserve energy (being ‘anabolic’) and this makes them passive, conservative, sluggish, stable and uninterested in politics. Men expend their surplus energy (being ‘katabolic’) and this makes them eager, energetic, passionate, variable and, thereby, interested in political and social matters. These biological ‘facts’ about metabolic states were used not only to explain behavioural differences between women and men but also to justify what our social and political arrangements ought to be. More specifically, they were used to argue for withholding from women political rights accorded to men because (according to Geddes and Thompson) “what was decided among the prehistoric Protozoa cannot be annulled by Act of Parliament” (quoted from Moi 1999, 18). It would be inappropriate to grant women political rights, as they are simply not suited to have those rights; it would also be futile since women (due to their biology) would simply not be interested in exercising their political rights. To counter this kind of biological determinism, feminists have argued that behavioural and psychological differences have social, rather than biological, causes. For instance, Simone de Beauvoir famously claimed that one is not born, but rather becomes a woman, and that “social discrimination produces in women moral and intellectual effects so profound that they appear to be caused by nature” (Beauvoir 1972 [original 1949], 18; for more, see the entry on Simone de Beauvoir). Commonly observed behavioural traits associated with women and men, then, are not caused by anatomy or chromosomes. Rather, they are culturally learned or acquired.
[snip]
Gender Terminology
In order to distinguish biological differences from social/psychological ones and to talk about the latter, feminists appropriated the term ‘gender’. Psychologists writing on transsexuality were the first to employ gender terminology in this sense. Until the 1960s, ‘gender’ was used solely to refer to masculine and feminine words, like le and la in French (Nicholson 1994, 80; see also Nicholson 1998). However, in order to explain why some people felt that they were ‘trapped in the wrong bodies’, the psychologist Robert Stoller (1968) began using the terms ‘sex’ to pick out biological traits and ‘gender’ to pick out the amount of femininity and masculinity a person exhibited. Although (by and large) a person's sex and gender complemented each other, separating out these terms seemed to make theoretical sense allowing Stoller to explain the phenomenon of transsexuality: transsexuals' sex and gender simply don't match.
Along with psychologists like Stoller, feminists found it useful to distinguish sex and gender. This enabled them to argue that many differences between women and men were socially produced and, therefore, changeable. Gayle Rubin (for instance) uses the phrase ‘sex/gender system’ in order to describe “a set of arrangements by which the biological raw material of human sex and procreation is shaped by human, social intervention” (1975, 165). Rubin employed this system to articulate that “part of social life which is the locus of the oppression of women” (1975, 159) describing gender as the “socially imposed division of the sexes” (1975, 179). Rubin's thought was that although biological differences are fixed, gender differences are the oppressive results of social interventions that dictate how women and men should behave. Women are oppressed as women and “by having to be women” (Rubin 1975, 204). However, since gender is social, it is thought to be mutable and alterable by political and social reform that would ultimately bring an end to women's subordination. Feminism should aim to create a “genderless (though not sexless) society, in which one's sexual anatomy is irrelevant to who one is, what one does, and with whom one makes love” (Rubin 1975, 204).
In some earlier interpretations, like Rubin's, sex and gender were thought to complement one another. The slogan ‘Gender is the social interpretation of sex’ captures this view. Nicholson calls this ‘the coat-rack view’ of gender: our sexed bodies are like coat racks and “provide the site upon which gender [is] constructed” (1994, 81). Gender conceived of as masculinity and femininity is superimposed upon the ‘coat-rack’ of sex as each society imposes on sexed bodies their cultural conceptions of how males and females should behave. This socially constructs gender differences – or the amount of femininity/masculinity of a person – upon our sexed bodies. That is, according to this interpretation, all humans are either male or female; their sex is fixed. But cultures interpret sexed bodies differently and project different norms on those bodies thereby creating feminine and masculine persons. Distinguishing sex and gender, however, also enables the two to come apart: they are separable in that one can be sexed male and yet be gendered a woman, or vice versa (Haslanger 2000b; Stoljar 1995).
[snip]
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/
Biological Determinism
Most people ordinarily seem to think that sex and gender are coextensive: women are human females, men are human males. Many feminists have historically disagreed and have endorsed the sex/ gender distinction. Provisionally: ‘sex’ denotes human females and males depending on biological features (chromosomes, sex organs, hormones and other physical features); ‘gender’ denotes women and men depending on social factors (social role, position, behaviour or identity). The main feminist motivation for making this distinction was to counter biological determinism or the view that biology is destiny.
A typical example of a biological determinist view is that of Geddes and Thompson who, in 1889, argued that social, psychological and behavioural traits were caused by metabolic state. Women supposedly conserve energy (being ‘anabolic’) and this makes them passive, conservative, sluggish, stable and uninterested in politics. Men expend their surplus energy (being ‘katabolic’) and this makes them eager, energetic, passionate, variable and, thereby, interested in political and social matters. These biological ‘facts’ about metabolic states were used not only to explain behavioural differences between women and men but also to justify what our social and political arrangements ought to be. More specifically, they were used to argue for withholding from women political rights accorded to men because (according to Geddes and Thompson) “what was decided among the prehistoric Protozoa cannot be annulled by Act of Parliament” (quoted from Moi 1999, 18). It would be inappropriate to grant women political rights, as they are simply not suited to have those rights; it would also be futile since women (due to their biology) would simply not be interested in exercising their political rights. To counter this kind of biological determinism, feminists have argued that behavioural and psychological differences have social, rather than biological, causes. For instance, Simone de Beauvoir famously claimed that one is not born, but rather becomes a woman, and that “social discrimination produces in women moral and intellectual effects so profound that they appear to be caused by nature” (Beauvoir 1972 [original 1949], 18; for more, see the entry on Simone de Beauvoir). Commonly observed behavioural traits associated with women and men, then, are not caused by anatomy or chromosomes. Rather, they are culturally learned or acquired.
[snip]
Gender Terminology
In order to distinguish biological differences from social/psychological ones and to talk about the latter, feminists appropriated the term ‘gender’. Psychologists writing on transsexuality were the first to employ gender terminology in this sense. Until the 1960s, ‘gender’ was used solely to refer to masculine and feminine words, like le and la in French (Nicholson 1994, 80; see also Nicholson 1998). However, in order to explain why some people felt that they were ‘trapped in the wrong bodies’, the psychologist Robert Stoller (1968) began using the terms ‘sex’ to pick out biological traits and ‘gender’ to pick out the amount of femininity and masculinity a person exhibited. Although (by and large) a person's sex and gender complemented each other, separating out these terms seemed to make theoretical sense allowing Stoller to explain the phenomenon of transsexuality: transsexuals' sex and gender simply don't match.
Along with psychologists like Stoller, feminists found it useful to distinguish sex and gender. This enabled them to argue that many differences between women and men were socially produced and, therefore, changeable. Gayle Rubin (for instance) uses the phrase ‘sex/gender system’ in order to describe “a set of arrangements by which the biological raw material of human sex and procreation is shaped by human, social intervention” (1975, 165). Rubin employed this system to articulate that “part of social life which is the locus of the oppression of women” (1975, 159) describing gender as the “socially imposed division of the sexes” (1975, 179). Rubin's thought was that although biological differences are fixed, gender differences are the oppressive results of social interventions that dictate how women and men should behave. Women are oppressed as women and “by having to be women” (Rubin 1975, 204). However, since gender is social, it is thought to be mutable and alterable by political and social reform that would ultimately bring an end to women's subordination. Feminism should aim to create a “genderless (though not sexless) society, in which one's sexual anatomy is irrelevant to who one is, what one does, and with whom one makes love” (Rubin 1975, 204).
In some earlier interpretations, like Rubin's, sex and gender were thought to complement one another. The slogan ‘Gender is the social interpretation of sex’ captures this view. Nicholson calls this ‘the coat-rack view’ of gender: our sexed bodies are like coat racks and “provide the site upon which gender [is] constructed” (1994, 81). Gender conceived of as masculinity and femininity is superimposed upon the ‘coat-rack’ of sex as each society imposes on sexed bodies their cultural conceptions of how males and females should behave. This socially constructs gender differences – or the amount of femininity/masculinity of a person – upon our sexed bodies. That is, according to this interpretation, all humans are either male or female; their sex is fixed. But cultures interpret sexed bodies differently and project different norms on those bodies thereby creating feminine and masculine persons. Distinguishing sex and gender, however, also enables the two to come apart: they are separable in that one can be sexed male and yet be gendered a woman, or vice versa (Haslanger 2000b; Stoljar 1995).
[snip]
QUOTE (Seeker1 @ Jun 17 2008, 10:49 PM) 
. . .
Right-wing Christians somehow connected my idea of five sexes to the United Nations-sponsored Fourth World Conference on Women, to be held in Beijing two years later, apparently seeing some sort of global conspiracy at work. "It is maddening," says the text of a New York Times advertisement paid for by the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, "to listen to discussions of 'five genders' when every sane person knows there are but two sexes, both of which are rooted in nature."
How many genders are there? (I am differentiating gender as a cultural role from sex as a biological category.)
Many cultures had three or four or five, besides the two we normally think of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender
Examples of third genders in many cultures include the Hijras of India, the Kathoeys of Thailand, the Winktes/Two-Spirits/"Berdaches" of Lakota Culture, and the Fa'afine of Polynesia.
Binary thinking limits our understanding. There are more than two sexes, and more than two genders.
Right-wing Christians somehow connected my idea of five sexes to the United Nations-sponsored Fourth World Conference on Women, to be held in Beijing two years later, apparently seeing some sort of global conspiracy at work. "It is maddening," says the text of a New York Times advertisement paid for by the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, "to listen to discussions of 'five genders' when every sane person knows there are but two sexes, both of which are rooted in nature."
How many genders are there? (I am differentiating gender as a cultural role from sex as a biological category.)
Many cultures had three or four or five, besides the two we normally think of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender
Examples of third genders in many cultures include the Hijras of India, the Kathoeys of Thailand, the Winktes/Two-Spirits/"Berdaches" of Lakota Culture, and the Fa'afine of Polynesia.
Binary thinking limits our understanding. There are more than two sexes, and more than two genders.
Why can't the religious ones conform to nature? Because they have always been scared of nature. It's just denial of certain glaring truths, as usual.
Secret scenes in labor rooms where doctors quietly assign a sex to a baby that is not quite "right" with the binary world?
~~~~~~
By outward appearance, I have always appeared as a girl. Perhaps by some . . I've been termed a tomboy - but that's because I like blue jeans. Girlfriends have tried with me. They paint my face with eyeliner, lipstick and curlers for eyelashes, stick me in a slinky dress, and push me out into the world. I suddenly became more powerful. Men AND women fell down all over themselves in front of me to my great amazement. That's when I would turnaround, go home, rip off what I called the costume and clown face and just be in shock. Would I want to dress this way the rest of my life to have that kind of power, I asked myself? My answer is and was always no. (big dummy)
Hey, I liked climbing trees, riding my bicycle at break-neck speeds down long steep hills (not caring or even thinking what would happen after I got to the bottom of that hill) and loving to play all sports - from football to baseball to soccer to swimming. Never could get the hang of basketball -- wasn't coordinated enough. Still, to this day, I ride my bike, swim, yoga, treadmill, take long walks (not much running anymore) and try with the weight training. Just getting the hang of that.
But I love aesthetics: beautiful writing, paintings, people. And the beauty I see is not what marketeers say is beautiful. For instance a beautifully made photograph of an old Indian woman with many, many wrinkles is much more beautiful than Barbie doll.
I am a nurturer. Loved motherhood. Would be in motherhood right now if I could. Surprised my self when I became a mother, at how I took on the fighting spirit of a lionness. I actually had homicidal thoughts while being a mother. Because I would imagine what I would do if anyone would ever try to hurt her. That all surprised me.
So I don't know which gender I would be? But I know it's not among the standard two. Also, I have noticed in my later years that I must have more of something (the big T?) because there are some women who bring the man out in me.
So, I think it is because I have both evolved in my thinking (freer) that I can say these things, and too, because my chemistry is changing. The age I'm at right now is so wonderful in that respect.
And all this thinking has never been the case with me before. Then there are some men who bring the man out in me. I have impatience with them. I don't think that's my fault necessarily. I think that's societies fault, for not properly attending to what the man has gone through since the sexual and/or feminist revolution. They are just plain confused about women. I want to slap them sometimes. And I'm not a hitter. REally a pansy when it comes to hitting others.
Anyway, I think I am the basic androg in my brain, and that's why I prefer blue jeans.
QUOTE (egghead @ Jun 18 2008, 02:59 PM)
Secret scenes in labor rooms where doctors quietly assign a sex to a baby that is not quite "right" with the binary world?
Fausto-Sterling's main opponent has been a prominent Johns Hopkins surgeon and sexologist named John Money. (yes, that is his last name).
According to Money, it is the responsibility of doctors to "fix" intersexual children and assign them a discrete sex at birth, correcting any ambiguities nature may have left behind. According to Money, society has no room for people who are not "totally" male or "totally" female. Growing up intersexual is not an option. I mean, what bathroom would these poor people use? So the parents and doctors choose a discrete sex, and any 'imperfections' are corrected. Holes or poles as needed. Of course, as Money's disciples are starting to learn, now that they are dealing with some of their "fixees" in adulthood, is that correcting the outer equipment doesn't change the chromosomes, the glands, or the brain, so in many cases all they've done is produce some unhappy people. Many transgenders report feeling "stuck in the wrong body". So do some of Money's "victims".
IMHO, this is the link between racism and sexism. We can't accept the fact that maybe people are "somewhat" male or "somewhat" female, and may contain a little bit of both. Males who show femininity are sissies and pussies, women who show masculinity are dykes and tomboys. But the Chinese always understood things differently. Everything always contains a bit of what is apparently its opposite.
There's always some yin in the yang and yang in the yin. Men have nipples and women have clitorises. Like I said, women make testosterone, and men do make estrogen.
But it's the same problem with racism. The whole idea of "pure" races is a fiction, anyway. Every group on Earth is intermarried and the true thing that terrifies racists most is not other races but racial intermarriage. The idea that we all can mix with each other until we all look brown - that's pure terror for them. You mean everyone of us is a little bit of this and a little bit of that? I don't think what bothers them most about Obama is that he is "black" - it's that he is multi-racial. He breaks down our discrete categories and barriers.
Yeah, always tired/bored with the either/or.
~~~~~~~~
Back to my above post. Forgot to add this:
Drag Queens have more power than me . . .
Why do I let them have all the fun and I don't.
Have always had that power available to me, and still do.
Was the taste of power when I had it - taste sour? Did it seem NOT RIGHT? (so . .. don't think my choices of how I present my "self" had everything to do with gender tendencies)
~~~~~~~~
Back to my above post. Forgot to add this:
Drag Queens have more power than me . . .
Why do I let them have all the fun and I don't.
Have always had that power available to me, and still do.
Was the taste of power when I had it - taste sour? Did it seem NOT RIGHT? (so . .. don't think my choices of how I present my "self" had everything to do with gender tendencies)
QUOTE (Seeker1 @ Jun 18 2008, 02:23 PM)
. . .
I don't think what bothers them most about Obama is that he is "black" - it's that he is multi-racial. He breaks down our discrete categories and barriers.
I don't think what bothers them most about Obama is that he is "black" - it's that he is multi-racial. He breaks down our discrete categories and barriers.
I think the multi-racial aspect is part of the threat and maybe what we have evolved into? But look what came before it.
When dealing with white "harder working" males, I think it's still all about that deeply rooted, old racist canard of that "black-appearing-black-man is more studly than I and he will steal my woman" - especially if there are too many of them.
So . . . lots of black men are in prison.
QUOTE
He breaks down our discrete categories and barriers.
Confusion is a dangerous thing when coming in contact with ignorance.
QUOTE (Seeker1 @ Jun 18 2008, 02:23 PM)
. . .
Like I said, women make testosterone, and men do make estrogen.
. . .
Like I said, women make testosterone, and men do make estrogen.
. . .
Really?
Wonder what Testy-esty stew would feel like.
(you separated those out) (and I don't think they are separate or either/or)
QUOTE
When the earth was still flat,
And the clouds made of fire,
And mountains stretched up to the sky,
Sometimes higher,
Folks roamed the earth
Like big rolling kegs.
They had two sets of arms.
They had two sets of legs.
They had two faces peering
Out of one giant head
So they could watch all around them
As they talked; while they read.
And they never knew nothing of love.
It was before the origin of love.
The origin of love
And there were three sexes then,
One that looked like two men
Glued up back to back,
Called the children of the sun.
And similar in shape and girth
Were the children of the earth.
They looked like two girls
Rolled up in one.
And the children of the moon
Were like a fork shoved on a spoon.
They were part sun, part earth
Part daughter, part son.
The origin of love
Now the gods grew quite scared
Of our strength and defiance
And Thor said,
"I'm gonna kill them all
With my hammer,
Like I killed the giants."
And Zeus said, "No,
You better let me
Use my lightening, like scissors,
Like I cut the legs off the whales
And dinosaurs into lizards."
Then he grabbed up some bolts
And he let out a laugh,
Said, "I'll split them right down the middle.
Gonna cut them right up in half."
And then storm clouds gathered above
Into great balls of fire
And then fire shot down
From the sky in bolts
Like shining blades
Of a knife.
And it ripped
Right through the flesh
Of the children of the sun
And the moon
And the earth.
And some Indian god
Sewed the wound up into a hole,
Pulled it round to our belly
To remind us of the price we pay.
And Osiris and the gods of the Nile
Gathered up a big storm
To blow a hurricane,
To scatter us away,
In a flood of wind and rain,
And a sea of tidal waves,
To wash us all away,
And if we don't behave
They'll cut us down again
And we'll be hopping round on one foot
And looking through one eye.
Last time I saw you
We had just split in two.
You were looking at me.
I was looking at you.
You had a way so familiar,
But I could not recognize,
Cause you had blood on your face;
I had blood in my eyes.
But I could swear by your expression
That the pain down in your soul
Was the same as the one down in mine.
That's the pain,
Cuts a straight line
Down through the heart;
We called it love.
So we wrapped our arms around each other,
Trying to shove ourselves back together.
We were making love,
Making love.
It was a cold dark evening,
Such a long time ago,
When by the mighty hand of Jove,
It was the sad story
How we became
Lonely two-legged creatures,
It's the story of
The origin of love.
That's the origin of love.
And the clouds made of fire,
And mountains stretched up to the sky,
Sometimes higher,
Folks roamed the earth
Like big rolling kegs.
They had two sets of arms.
They had two sets of legs.
They had two faces peering
Out of one giant head
So they could watch all around them
As they talked; while they read.
And they never knew nothing of love.
It was before the origin of love.
The origin of love
And there were three sexes then,
One that looked like two men
Glued up back to back,
Called the children of the sun.
And similar in shape and girth
Were the children of the earth.
They looked like two girls
Rolled up in one.
And the children of the moon
Were like a fork shoved on a spoon.
They were part sun, part earth
Part daughter, part son.
The origin of love
Now the gods grew quite scared
Of our strength and defiance
And Thor said,
"I'm gonna kill them all
With my hammer,
Like I killed the giants."
And Zeus said, "No,
You better let me
Use my lightening, like scissors,
Like I cut the legs off the whales
And dinosaurs into lizards."
Then he grabbed up some bolts
And he let out a laugh,
Said, "I'll split them right down the middle.
Gonna cut them right up in half."
And then storm clouds gathered above
Into great balls of fire
And then fire shot down
From the sky in bolts
Like shining blades
Of a knife.
And it ripped
Right through the flesh
Of the children of the sun
And the moon
And the earth.
And some Indian god
Sewed the wound up into a hole,
Pulled it round to our belly
To remind us of the price we pay.
And Osiris and the gods of the Nile
Gathered up a big storm
To blow a hurricane,
To scatter us away,
In a flood of wind and rain,
And a sea of tidal waves,
To wash us all away,
And if we don't behave
They'll cut us down again
And we'll be hopping round on one foot
And looking through one eye.
Last time I saw you
We had just split in two.
You were looking at me.
I was looking at you.
You had a way so familiar,
But I could not recognize,
Cause you had blood on your face;
I had blood in my eyes.
But I could swear by your expression
That the pain down in your soul
Was the same as the one down in mine.
That's the pain,
Cuts a straight line
Down through the heart;
We called it love.
So we wrapped our arms around each other,
Trying to shove ourselves back together.
We were making love,
Making love.
It was a cold dark evening,
Such a long time ago,
When by the mighty hand of Jove,
It was the sad story
How we became
Lonely two-legged creatures,
It's the story of
The origin of love.
That's the origin of love.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedwig_and_th...Inch_%28film%29
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.