reply to post by zysin5
She said that they used that term...so maybe I defined it wrong, I don't know what exactly it is just taking what she told me. Ok, so I assume that
it is mixed with both male/femal, but not hermaphrodite because according to what she said no sexual organs, like at all, but definatley totally
biological, so not cyborgs either. Here's merriam webster definitions
1: having the characteristics or nature of both male and female
2 a: neither specifically feminine nor masculine b: suitable to or for either sex
3: having traditional male and female roles obscured or reversed
I think they are going by def. 2.
www.merriam-webster.com... Or maybe they're starting them off this way. Not letting natural hormones develop, so as they
will not have any sex needs or any weaknesses that either sex would present? They would be in essence, sexless. Probably there is a better word for
it, but they are using this term.