Men wearing dresses

[Emily Lake]

I see no point in replying to your responses, as it is obvious to me that we will never agree. That is fine; I did not expect complete agreement from anyone. I will say, however, that you don’t know me and your opinion of what causes me true emotional pain is just that – your opinion.

But THIS statement gives me pause:

As for finding a solution that works, you do not have the background or experience to contribute meaningfully to that conversation, and chances are good that you don't want to.

I am seriously curious. Why do you flatly state that I cannot or do not want to contribute meaningfully to the conversation? In my opinion, this is a conversation that should include everyone as it will impact all of us. Do you think that only those who are non binary should have input on this?

Ruth

It seems like the 99.9% of the population that are being asked to make fundamental alterations to our language should be included in the discussion. Call me crazy, I guess.

 

[Emily Lake]

So what? You are taking away all responsibility from the person who is affected more to regulate their emotions and think ahead, and not put themselves in these kinds of situations or understanding this about themselves and can take steps to manage their own emotions.

If we act on this and refrain from being fully honest when debating, because of the feelings of others, we're treating them as children who don't know better. How isn't that MORE insulting?

I think it's even worse than you propose. Everyone ends up having to defer to whoever can most loudly claim to be hurt. It places emotion far, far above reason.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So what? You are taking away all responsibility from the person who is affected more to regulate their emotions and think ahead, and not put themselves in these kinds of situations or understanding this about themselves and can take steps to manage their own emotions.

If we act on this and refrain from being fully honest when debating, because of the feelings of others, we're treating them as children who don't know better. How isn't that MORE insulting?

It's this kind of thinking which makes everybody hate Millennials.

It's just feelings. Getting ones feelings hurt isn't a disaster nor a big deal. In debates I think we should always gun for full honesty, no matter what.

And if we can't handle our own emotions in the conversation we can always bow out from the conversation. This is what sets children apart from adults. It's not that adults don't have feelings. They just have learned how to manage them.

No you haven't. Having the privilege to be unfeeling toward others without consequence isn't maturity.

At this point in history there is no one more childish and unable to manage their emotions than white men being told they are not as important as they have been led to believe.

Cry, bluster, stamp your feet, blame made up enemies like "millennials" and "cancel culture," but you are being challenged and called out for your hubris, immaturity, and callousness like it or not. Your opinions about people and experiences you know nothing about are not useful or required, and your lack of humanity is your responsibility to handle if you don't want it called out. Die mad about it.

I agree that middle aged white men having temper tantrums on forums is hilarious. I totally agree about your assessment of this group of people (which I belong to). It's totally the sting of the pain of privilige slipping away.

But here's the thing. You are sinking to their/our level.

The goal of Woke is to protect the feelings of people just as much as we used to protect the feelings of middle aged mediocre men. I think that's totally backward.

I say fuck everybodys feelings. It's just feelings. If something hurts to hear in a forum then it's likely something that is healthy for you to hear. That's my experience from having my feelings hurt in forums.

And if you can't handle having your feelings hurt, then why are you on a philosophy, sceptics and religion discussion forum? For people like us it should be a sacred mission to poke at everything we avoid to face out of fear.

Everybody loses from disengenuin politiness.

I always prefer a cutting insult to a friendly lie. Especially in a forum like this

 

[Angry Floof]

Poor babies. The injustice of it all!

WHO is treating you all so badly?

 

[Emily Lake]

Poor babies. The injustice of it all!

WHO is treating you all so badly?

In this thread? You, mostly.

Rather than trying to have a discussion and find common ground, you're kind of hell-bent on berating people and insulting them.

 

[Angry Floof]

Poor babies. The injustice of it all!

WHO is treating you all so badly?

In this thread? You, mostly.

Rather than trying to have a discussion and find common ground, you're kind of hell-bent on berating people and insulting them.

Oh my goodness, that's terrible! And also irrelevant.

 

[Toni]

YEs, I am 100% certain. "Intersex" doesn't actually mean that they're in-between the sexes. They may have ambiguous genitalia, but each individual is still ONLY male or female. There is LITERALLY no alternative among humans - a single individual cannot produce both egg cells and sperm cells. It's not possible.

I don't think it's actually impossible--the key being your statement "a single individual". What if it isn't a single individual? What if the person is actually a chimera? One part is male, the other is testosterone-insensitive, could be either XX or XY. Get just the right blend and you could end up with two functional sets of anatomy downstairs.

Horrendously unlikely but I see no reason to think it's impossible. Chimeras certainly exist and I seriously doubt we even know how common it might be as most of them will not be detected. (I'm thinking of a woman arrested for welfare fraud because the DNA test came back saying the kid wasn't hers. Turns out her reproductive apparatus wasn't hers, either.)

A chimera is an amalgam of two gene sets, but is still a single individual. You'd have to have duplicate organs in order to produce both sperm and ova. You'd have to have duplicate organs in order to have both a penis and a vagina. You don't get duplication in chimerism. It's possible for a chimeric person to have some chromosomes that are male and some that are female - absolutely. But unless they are literally duplicating organs, they can't end up with two functional sets of anatomy - not as a chimera.

Maybe as conjoint twins?

This is not true. There ARE individuals with both ovaries and tested. It is extremely rare but it happens
And is well documented. I provided links earlier.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/differences-in-sex-development/

https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/ovotesticular-disorder-of-sex-development/#related-disorders

Ovotesticular disorder of sex development (ovotesticular DSD) is a very rare disorder in which an infant is born with the internal reproductive organs (gonads) of both sexes (female ovaries and male testes). The gonads can be any combination of ovary, testes or combined ovary and testes (ovotestes). The external genitalia are usually ambiguous but can range from normal male to normal female.

Co-joined twins are identical twins which are derived from the union of a single ovum fertilized by a single sperm that failed to divide completely into two separate embryos. They will continue to develop into two fetuses but will remain connected through development. Because they are genetically identical, they would have identical gonads and sex organs.

 

[Toni]

I'm just going to step in here to write that I am prejudiced about a lot of things. I hope that I am conscious of my various prejudices and that none of them are against any people. But I am certain that is not really the case.

Somewhat relevant to this discussion, it appears that now some federal documents call mothers 'birthing persons' which I find offensive and extremely upsetting.
Here's a link to an article, reprinted from the Chicago Tribune which only allows paid subscribers to read the column there: https://www.startribune.com/theres-...t-dear-old-birthing-person-of-mine/600068973/

I am happy to celebrate all individuals who help give rise to a human being by egg donation, gestation, or childbirth the word mother, and to add context where necessary for clarification: An egg donor is only the genetic mother. A gestational surrogate carried the child but is not usually genetically related to the child. Transmen who retain a uterus and choose to carry a child act as the child's mother during gestation, whatever they prefer to be called during the pregnancy or after. And if, after giving birth, they see themselves as the child's father or simply parent, no problem. But biologically, they are the mother, even if that is never mentioned again. Even if they are married to a woman who becomes the mother. Nonbinary persons who choose to carry a child are the child's mother during gestation, and often from conception onward, whatever they choose to call themselves. Those who give birth and then give the child up for adoption are still the birth mother, even if they never laid eyes on the child. Women who adopt children, be they cis or trans, are mother to the adopted child. Women who raise children, even temporarily in foster situations are nonetheless mother to those children, however fleetingly. It's more than possible to have two or more mothers! Ask any child raised in part or wholely by a stepmother or foster mother! Heck, when they were growing up, some of my kids' friends called me mom. So did some of the exchange students who lived with us. Frankly, some single fathers also act as mother to their children and that, too, should be honored just as women who act as both mother and father should be honored for assuming the paternal role.

THAT term: birthing person, has kind of broken me.

I also struggle with watching transmen who break into new public positions as the first trans woman being celebrated when so few, or no cis women have ever held that role. This is an individual who, no matter what her private struggles, benefited from all of society's benefits conferred on boys and men until she decided to act on her innermost understanding and awareness of herself and dress and present herself as the woman she is, or even have gender confirmation surgery. Ideologically, I have no problem with transgender women being as successful in their careers and lives as they can be. It just grates sometimes when a transwoman breaks a barrier that so few or no ciswomen have been able to break in a chosen career.

I fully acknowledge that I might be wrong, that it might be prejudice or even bigotry on my part.

I think they're perfectly reasonable concerns and frustrations, and that you're not at all bigoted.

For the record, I no longer use Always pads, and I won't be using Midol in the future, because both of those companies have embraced this sort of language. Always got rid of the female symbol on their packaging... even though only females use their product. Midol released a whole series of internet ads referring to their customers as "menstruators". It's insulting and dehumanizing.

I also won’t be using those products but not for any political reason or to make a statement.

 

[steve_bank]

So what? You are taking away all responsibility from the person who is affected more to regulate their emotions and think ahead, and not put themselves in these kinds of situations or understanding this about themselves and can take steps to manage their own emotions.

If we act on this and refrain from being fully honest when debating, because of the feelings of others, we're treating them as children who don't know better. How isn't that MORE insulting?

It's this kind of thinking which makes everybody hate Millennials.

It's just feelings. Getting ones feelings hurt isn't a disaster nor a big deal. In debates I think we should always gun for full honesty, no matter what.

And if we can't handle our own emotions in the conversation we can always bow out from the conversation. This is what sets children apart from adults. It's not that adults don't have feelings. They just have learned how to manage them.

No you haven't. Having the privilege to be unfeeling toward others without consequence isn't maturity.

At this point in history there is no one more childish and unable to manage their emotions than white men being told they are not as important as they have been led to believe.

Cry, bluster, stamp your feet, blame made up enemies like "millennials" and "cancel culture," but you are being challenged and called out for your hubris, immaturity, and callousness like it or not. Your opinions about people and experiences you know nothing about are not useful or required, and your lack of humanity is your responsibility to handle if you don't want it called out. Die mad about it.

If you want to start painting with a broad brush..

Or minorities who whine about being suppressed as an excuse for not making an attempt to succeed. Or minorities who are 'deeply offended' at any possible interpretation of something being race related. Or minorities who do not take responsibility for their lves and blame every bump in the road as racism....ad nauseum.

 

[Toni]

So what? You are taking away all responsibility from the person who is affected more to regulate their emotions and think ahead, and not put themselves in these kinds of situations or understanding this about themselves and can take steps to manage their own emotions.

If we act on this and refrain from being fully honest when debating, because of the feelings of others, we're treating them as children who don't know better. How isn't that MORE insulting?

I think it's even worse than you propose. Everyone ends up having to defer to whoever can most loudly claim to be hurt. It places emotion far, far above reason.

The 'change' has already been in use for years. So far, no one has been upset when I use 'they' to indicate person or persons whose sex or gender is not known or not relevant. It's just an indefinite pronoun and it's been in use for a long, long time.

Yes, I admit that sometimes it is jarring when I see persons who appear to be biologically male present themselves as female by their hair and wardrobe. When I was a kid, I found it jarring to see inter racial couples which were rare in my tiny corner of the world 50 years ago. My discomfort at seeing something I am not familiar with is not a reason to treat other people badly. Refusing to acknowledge people as they see themselves, whatever their chromosomal array or genitalia they were born with or acquired through medical treatment IS worse than feeling uncomfortable because it doesn't fit my personal set of boxes that people can be placed into.

As a child and adolescent, I had many interests that were not stereotypical 'girl' interests---yet many girls and women have held those same interests throughout history, even to the point of disguising their sex and/or gender in order to pursue those interests. But even if I were the first and only girl who liked to collect bugs and rocks and climb trees, it didn't matter. I was a girl and I liked those things and other 'non-girl' things. It was indeed hurtful to be told, sometimes by people who supposedly loved and cared about me, that I wasn't really a 'girl' because girls didn't like to do the things I did or that I couldn't really be good at certain things because everyone knew that boys were better than girls at (fill in the blank). Which led me to engage in some pretty stupid contests.

But that wasn't nearly as hurtful as the names that gay people were called in my high school, even though their orientation was unacknowledged openly. By several orders of magnitude! Or to be told that it matters more that someone else--a family member, a stranger, whoever--has a better understanding of who you REALLY are than you do yourself, even if it's something you struggled with your whole life, spent hours and money in doctor's offices and therapists offices trying to figure out or figure out how to tell other people. And that it's 'too much trouble' because it makes cis straight people uncomfortable if you insist on being acknowledged for who you are. Because they might have to use words that they already use regularly in a slightly different way.

And then: FFS, some languages do not even have gendered pronouns! Chinese, Finnish and Estonian are 3 such languages!

https://deepbaltic.com/2018/03/20/being-non-binary-in-a-language-without-gendered-pronouns-estonian/

 

[Angry Floof]

Feeling marginalized, Steve? Truly awful.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So what? You are taking away all responsibility from the person who is affected more to regulate their emotions and think ahead, and not put themselves in these kinds of situations or understanding this about themselves and can take steps to manage their own emotions.

If we act on this and refrain from being fully honest when debating, because of the feelings of others, we're treating them as children who don't know better. How isn't that MORE insulting?

It's this kind of thinking which makes everybody hate Millennials.

It's just feelings. Getting ones feelings hurt isn't a disaster nor a big deal. In debates I think we should always gun for full honesty, no matter what.

And if we can't handle our own emotions in the conversation we can always bow out from the conversation. This is what sets children apart from adults. It's not that adults don't have feelings. They just have learned how to manage them.

No you haven't. Having the privilege to be unfeeling toward others without consequence isn't maturity.

At this point in history there is no one more childish and unable to manage their emotions than white men being told they are not as important as they have been led to believe.

Cry, bluster, stamp your feet, blame made up enemies like "millennials" and "cancel culture," but you are being challenged and called out for your hubris, immaturity, and callousness like it or not. Your opinions about people and experiences you know nothing about are not useful or required, and your lack of humanity is your responsibility to handle if you don't want it called out. Die mad about it.

If you want to start painting with a broad brush..

Or minorities who whine about being suppressed as an excuse for not making an attempt to succeed. Or minorities who are 'deeply offended' at any possible interpretation of something being race related. Or minorities who do not take responsibility for their lves and blame every bump in the road as racism....ad nauseum.

A person complaining about minorities by saying anyone that complains is a lazy minorities. Presumption.

Complaining about blacks complaining about racism. Why don’t own a home? Because you are lazy! It is that simple! Why if I had all the advantages of AA...

Ignorance screaming from the mountain tops.

 

[Angry Floof]

I agree that middle aged white men having temper tantrums on forums is hilarious. I totally agree about your assessment of this group of people (which I belong to). It's totally the sting of the pain of privilige slipping away.

Except nothing is slipping away from you. In addition, your feelings are not relevant to whether non binary people prefer the pronoun "they" in the singular.

But here's the thing. You are sinking to their/our level.

You mean showing a complete disregard for your feelings? Maybe, though that's not relevant, either. But hang on to that thought. It could be useful to you at some point.

The goal of Woke is to protect the feelings of people just as much as we used to protect the feelings of middle aged mediocre men. I think that's totally backward.

And you'd be wrong, but it doesnt matter because your opinions about imaginary enemies are not relevant to non binary people prefering the pronoun "they" in the singular anyway.

I say fuck everybodys feelings. It's just feelings. If something hurts to hear in a forum then it's likely something that is healthy for you to hear. That's my experience from having my feelings hurt in forums.

Yes, we already know you turn to callousness as a way of coping with your feelings whenever you're uncomfortable. No need to keep repeating it. We get it. You have limitless privilege to be as unfeeling toward others as you please with zero consequences.

And if you can't handle having your feelings hurt, then why are you on a philosophy, sceptics and religion discussion forum?

Who are you talking to? My feelings are fine and they're irrelevant anyway.

For people like us it should be a sacred mission to poke at everything we avoid to face out of fear.

Everybody loses from disengenuin politiness.

Who is "us"? Is this your mission? Is it sarcasm? It doesn't logically follow anything I've said. Maybe you quoted the wrong person by mistake? Also, if you're talking about fake politeness in that last sentence, yes, there are people who win with fake politeness and they enforce it with every bit of privilege they have. (Hint: you are not Socrates in that scenario. )

I always prefer a cutting insult to a friendly lie. Especially in a forum like this.

Are those your only options?

Also, telling someone their opinion isn't relevant when it really isn't relevant is not an insult. It’s just not a friendly lie.

 

[Elixir]

I say fuck everybodys feelings. It's just feelings. If something hurts to hear in a forum then it's likely something that is healthy for you to hear. That's my experience from having my feelings hurt in forums.

Yes, we already know you turn to callousness as a way of coping with your feelings whenever you're uncomfortable. No need to keep repeating it. We get it. You have limitless privilege to be as unfeeling toward others as you please with zero consequences.

Why would someone want to be unfeeling toward others? Because it hurts to be feeling toward others when they hurt.
The more empathic a person is the more it hurts. Masking or filtering the feelings of others is a "privilege" that all can enjoy, and one for which we can all suffer the consequences.
I think it's relatively easy for right wing sociopaths to reflexively say "fuck 'em and their feelings". But I can almost hear DrZ suffering under the weight of the decision to do so.
The temptation is plain enough -
This shit is a pain in the ass to deal with, some people are annoying, minorities always whine, life is short, who needs the bother, dresses are stupid looking, black people are hard to see in the dark, we'd all be better of if everyone just grew thicker skin and didn't get so upset...

Come to think of it, that does hold some appeal...

 

[Emily Lake]

Poor babies. The injustice of it all!

WHO is treating you all so badly?

In this thread? You, mostly.

Rather than trying to have a discussion and find common ground, you're kind of hell-bent on berating people and insulting them.

Oh my goodness, that's terrible! And also irrelevant.

Hmm. You mocking and demeaning other posters for not adopting your views is irrelevant to you mocking and demeaning other posters for not adopting your views? Alright then, carry on Noble Floof. Here, let me hand you a fresh lance for your next run at the windmill.

 

[Emily Lake]

This is not true. There ARE individuals with both ovaries and tested. It is extremely rare but it happens
And is well documented. I provided links earlier.

We're taking at cross purposes, or maybe using different language. There are absolutely individuals who have one ovary and one testis. On that you are absolutely correct - I even specifically mentioned that. What they don't have, however, are two ovaries and simultaneously two testes. Andi n those cases where an individual does have one of each, only one can be fertile - the other will be sterile (although more commonly both are sterile). Your quoted information regarding Ovotesticular disorder (colloquially referred to as true hermaphroditism) is the same information that I provided several posts ago.

For reference:

Show

Mmm... even in cases of true hermaphroditism, a person won't have two ovaries and two testes. They can't - ovaries and testes start out as the same tissue, and diverge during fetal development based on the chromosomal signals sent.

True hermaprhoditism is extremely rare - 0.0012%. Most commonly among that incredibly rare population are people who either have two ovotestes (a sterile tissue formation stalled halfway through differentiation) or they have one ovary and one ovotestis. These are female people (XX chromosomes, other internal reproductive organs are female) and they frequently have a malfunctioning SRY gene. This formation is somewhere around 3/4 of the cases. These female people are only fertile if they have one functioning ovary.

The remainder of the cases involve disorders that occur at conception: a single ovum ending up fertilized by two differently-sexed sperm, two ovum that fuse prior to being fertilized by a single male sperm, and vanishingly rare - two separate ovum, fertilized by two separate differently-sexed sperm that fuse after fertilization resulting in a true chimera.

In none of these cases will the individual produce both ova and sperm. In the majority of cases, they produce neither and are sterile. In no cases does a person have both a fully functional penis and a fully functional vagina. And in all cases, the person with the disorder is still only male or female.

When you read your quoted info from rare diseases or nhs, are you interpreting that to mean that these individuals have a total of FOUR gonads and simultaneously produce both ova and sperm?

Co-joined twins are identical twins which are derived from the union of a single ovum fertilized by a single sperm that failed to divide completely into two separate embryos. They will continue to develop into two fetuses but will remain connected through development. Because they are genetically identical, they would have identical gonads and sex organs.

Thanks I wasn't sure if a single fertilized ova that doesn't completely divide was the only way for them to form, or if it were possible to have a single ova fertilized by two sperm, that doesn't completely split.

 

[Emily Lake]

I also won’t be using those products but not for any political reason or to make a statement.

I'm not there yet. Still in the stage of night sweats, hot flashes, and occasional bouts of wanting to kill strangers for the crime of breathing. But I am counting the years...

 

[Emily Lake]

The 'change' has already been in use for years. So far, no one has been upset when I use 'they' to indicate person or persons whose sex or gender is not known or not relevant. It's just an indefinite pronoun and it's been in use for a long, long time.

Yes, I admit that sometimes it is jarring when I see persons who appear to be biologically male present themselves as female by their hair and wardrobe. When I was a kid, I found it jarring to see inter racial couples which were rare in my tiny corner of the world 50 years ago. My discomfort at seeing something I am not familiar with is not a reason to treat other people badly. Refusing to acknowledge people as they see themselves, whatever their chromosomal array or genitalia they were born with or acquired through medical treatment IS worse than feeling uncomfortable because it doesn't fit my personal set of boxes that people can be placed into.

As a child and adolescent, I had many interests that were not stereotypical 'girl' interests---yet many girls and women have held those same interests throughout history, even to the point of disguising their sex and/or gender in order to pursue those interests. But even if I were the first and only girl who liked to collect bugs and rocks and climb trees, it didn't matter. I was a girl and I liked those things and other 'non-girl' things. It was indeed hurtful to be told, sometimes by people who supposedly loved and cared about me, that I wasn't really a 'girl' because girls didn't like to do the things I did or that I couldn't really be good at certain things because everyone knew that boys were better than girls at (fill in the blank). Which led me to engage in some pretty stupid contests.

But that wasn't nearly as hurtful as the names that gay people were called in my high school, even though their orientation was unacknowledged openly. By several orders of magnitude! Or to be told that it matters more that someone else--a family member, a stranger, whoever--has a better understanding of who you REALLY are than you do yourself, even if it's something you struggled with your whole life, spent hours and money in doctor's offices and therapists offices trying to figure out or figure out how to tell other people. And that it's 'too much trouble' because it makes cis straight people uncomfortable if you insist on being acknowledged for who you are. Because they might have to use words that they already use regularly in a slightly different way.

And then: FFS, some languages do not even have gendered pronouns! Chinese, Finnish and Estonian are 3 such languages!

https://deepbaltic.com/2018/03/20/being-non-binary-in-a-language-without-gendered-pronouns-estonian/

90% of the time, I completely agree with respect to using pronouns as a person prefers. But I have reservations. They're limited to a few particular kinds of interactions, but they're still present.

For example, there was a case a couple of years ago where a 60 year old woman in London went to a meeting to discuss the potential impacts of the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act (specifically rewriting it to make legal recognition a matter solely of self-declaration and removing any requirement for a diagnosis or living as the target gender). The meeting was mobbed by a collection of activists... one of whom, a transgender identified male, proceeded to attack and beat up that 60 yo woman. In court, she kept referring to her attacker as "he" because, well, they were male and they looked male. The judge reprimanded the victim of this assault for not honoring her attacker's preferred pronouns. Ultimately, even though the judge found the attacker guilty of assault... the judge denied the victim financial recompense because she misgendered her male attacker.

Generally speaking, I'm not a fan of compelled speech. I'm especially not a fan of compelled speech when it is in direct opposition to observed reality.

As a courtesy and as expected good manners - 100%. Required and subject to penalty if you don't conform? No, not so much.

 

[steve_bank]

If you want to start painting with a broad brush..

Or minorities who whine about being suppressed as an excuse for not making an attempt to succeed. Or minorities who are 'deeply offended' at any possible interpretation of something being race related. Or minorities who do not take responsibility for their lves and blame every bump in the road as racism....ad nauseum.

A person complaining about minorities by saying anyone that complains is a lazy minorities. Presumption.

Complaining about blacks complaining about racism. Why don’t own a home? Because you are lazy! It is that simple! Why if I had all the advantages of AA...

Ignorance screaming from the mountain tops.

Sarcasm.

AF is resorting to the worse of bigotry, race bating, and stereotypes. The left and right are equally guilty. We see it every dauy in the nedia.

If AF us searching for common ground rce bating is not the way.

Off topic, but I have black friends whose conspiracy theoryyes rval the wacky whute right.

Did you know that Jews control the music industry and black musicans? It those Jews who force balcjk artsist to be crude and offensive.

People like AF resort to stereotypes without any real experience with the world around him.

On the question of blacks finding work another black friend said 'in Seattle there was always work..for anyone that wanted it'.

ave you heard American blacks complain about immigrants, including blacks, who do not speak English? I certainly have.

AF represents the narrow shallow minded liberal who only see one side.. Arm chair moralizing. Trafficking in cheap steeotypes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

YEs, I am 100% certain. "Intersex" doesn't actually mean that they're in-between the sexes. They may have ambiguous genitalia, but each individual is still ONLY male or female. There is LITERALLY no alternative among humans - a single individual cannot produce both egg cells and sperm cells. It's not possible.

I don't think it's actually impossible--the key being your statement "a single individual". What if it isn't a single individual? What if the person is actually a chimera? One part is male, the other is testosterone-insensitive, could be either XX or XY. Get just the right blend and you could end up with two functional sets of anatomy downstairs.

Horrendously unlikely but I see no reason to think it's impossible. Chimeras certainly exist and I seriously doubt we even know how common it might be as most of them will not be detected. (I'm thinking of a woman arrested for welfare fraud because the DNA test came back saying the kid wasn't hers. Turns out her reproductive apparatus wasn't hers, either.)

A chimera is an amalgam of two gene sets, but is still a single individual. You'd have to have duplicate organs in order to produce both sperm and ova. You'd have to have duplicate organs in order to have both a penis and a vagina. You don't get duplication in chimerism. It's possible for a chimeric person to have some chromosomes that are male and some that are female - absolutely. But unless they are literally duplicating organs, they can't end up with two functional sets of anatomy - not as a chimera.

Maybe as conjoint twins?

A chimera is basically the ultimate example of conjoined twins. It's two bodies grown together as one seamlessly. What if it's not quite seamless--some duplicate tissue?

Some cells in the body have one set of genes, other cells have another. It is not mixed within a cell. DNA from the twin comes back as the twin, not as you.