R.M v ATTORNEY GENERAL & 4 others [2010] eKLR or female external characteristics that correspond to their chromosomes, but do not correspond to their internal gonads.http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/USA/haas1/ - n22 Individuals who are considered intersexed may also be born with matching male chromosomes, gonads, and genitals but suffer childhood disease or accident that results in full or partial loss of their penis”. 109. It is apparent from the above, that the distinction between a pseudo-hermaphrodite and a true hermaphrodite as described above by Ormrod J. is of little significance in defining the term intersex. In short, intersex is a term describing an abnormal condition of varying degrees with regard to the sex constitution of a person. The term intersex and the term hermaphrodite may therefore be used interchangeably. It appears however, that the current preference is for the term intersex rather than the term hermaphrodite. 110. Having thus defined the term intersex, the next question is whether the petitioner is an intersex person. A medical report was produced which showed that the petitioner was seen by Dr. Nyakeri S.B. for review on 31st October, 2007. The doctor’s opinion which was short and to the point is as follows: “STATUS LOCALIS: Patient has well developed breast. On squeezing the nipples there is a discharge of watery milk. · Pubic hair not well developed. · Penis undeveloped. · Urethra opening absent · Testis absent �� Vagina opening shallow with fusion of labia Conclusion The patient has male Hermaphroditism.” 111. This Doctor did not swear any affidavit, and the details of his examination are not clear. The impression that one gets from a reading of the medical report is that the Doctor only carried out a visual physical examination of the petitioner’s external genitalia. That is to say that the doctor’s report does not provide adequate insight on the gonadal or chromosomal formation of the petitioner. Be that as it may, the report is sufficient to confirm that the petitioner falls within the description of an intersex person as he has ambiguous genitalia bearing physical characteristics of both male and female sex. 112. Having established that the petitioner is an intersex person, the next question is whether there is an identified class or body of persons known as intersex in this country whose interests the petitioner can represent. In other words, whether there are other persons other than the petitioner falling within the category of intersex persons as described above. It was for the petitioner and other parties who were supporting the petition to establish the presence of this body of persons. That could only be done by way of medical evidence and statistical data. Unfortunately, no such concrete evidence was laid before the court. This case is therefore distinguishable from the Il Chamus Case, (supra) where the four http://www.kenyalaw.org - Page 30/45