Assalumu a'laykum. While ago, you defended someone who was being attacked for not being heterosexual and you stated the completion of the hadith about men not acting like women and vice versa. Is there really a completion? I couldn't find any?
Apologies for the shitty gendered terms and shit in this, these are direct quotes:
The person who is by nature a hermaphrodite [mukhannath khalqi] is not to be blamed. This is based on [the consideration that] if he is not capable of abandoning the female, swinging his hips in walking and speaking in a feminine way, after having been subjected to treatment against it, [he is at least willing to accept that] it is still possible for him to abandon it, if only gradually. But if he gives up the cure with no good excuse, then he deserves blame.
At-Tabari took it as an example that the Prophet (God bless him and grant him salvation) did not forbid the hermaphrodite from entering the women’s quarters until he heard him giving a description of the woman in great detail. Then he prohibited it. This proves that no blame is on the hermaphrodite for simply being created that way.
That being so, the rulings derived from these and other noblehadiths on treatment grant permission to perform an operation changing a man into a woman, or vice versa, as long as a reliable doctor concludes that there are innate causes in the body itself, indicating a buried [matmura] female nature, or a covered [maghmura] male nature, because the operation will disclose these buried or covered organs, thereby curing a corporal disease which cannot be removed, except by this operation.
This is also dealt with in a hadith about cutting a vein, which is related through Jabir: “The Messenger of God sent a physician to abu ibn Kacb. The physician cut a vein and burned it.” This hadith is related by Ahmad [ibn Hanbal] and Muslim. What supports this view is what al-Qastallani(30) and al-cAsqalani say in their commentaries on it: “This means that it is incumbent upon the hermaphrodite to remove the symptoms of femininity.”
And this is further sustained by the author of Fath al-Bari who says “… having given him treatment in order to abandon it…” This is a clear proof that the duty prescribed for the hermaphrodite can take the form of a treatment. The operation is such a treatment, perhaps even the best treatment. This operation can not be granted at the mere wish to change sex with no clear and convincing corporal motives. In that case it would fall under that noble Hadith which al-Bukhari relates through Anas: “The Messenger of God cursed the hermaphrodites among the men and the over-masculine women, saying ‘expel them from their houses’, whereupon the Prophet himself (God bless him and grant him salvation) expelled one, and cUmar expelled another one.” This Hadith is related by Ahmad and al-Bukhari.
To sum up: It is permissible to perform the operation in order to reveal what was hidden of male or female organs. Indeed, it is obligatory to do so on the grounds that it must be considered a treatment, when a trustworthy doctor advises it. It is, however, not permissible to do it at the mere wish to change sex from woman to man, or vice versa.
this is a reminder that “hermaphrodite” is not only biologically inaccurate, but also a slur, and I do not agree with a lot of this; this is just the reasoning behind Iran allowing gender affirming surgery under sharia, which uses hadith and interpretations (bolded) to allow trans people to have surgeries.
this is a reminder that Iran considers homosexuality a “disease” and that “changing one’s gender” is the “cure”
i do not agree with this, only with the actual hadith that there are people who naturally do not fit into the gender binary and this is no fault of their own.
I would suggest reading more about mukhanathoon, there is a wealth of knowledge and history on this identity; you’d probably learn a lot