Prof Ross Tucker continues to tweet that hermaphroditism cannot exist in humans. He challenges you to look up the "biological definition" of the term.
Tweet: Look up the biological definition of hermaphrodite. That cannot exist on human physiology. Ignorance
Anxious to alleviate my poor ignorance, I dutifully did "look up" said biological definition.
hermaphrodite
having both male and female reproductive organs in one individual; also known as monecious; contrast to diecious
Source: Noland, George B. 1983. General Biology, 11th Edition. St. Louis.
But I do think I will start saying "monecious", just to irk him.
So at least in 1983, the term "hermaphrodite" was noncontroversial even in "General Biology", and indubitably applicable to humans. Almost every (general usage) dictionary you can find will repeat this. Yet according to "new-thinking" (sometime after 1984), it has been "deprecated" in humans by some bio-authorities, because humans don't commonly have it as part of the life cycle (as fish do).
Fortunately, there are textbooks not capitulating to new-think post-1984. For instance, we have "Developmental Biology" by Scott Gilbert, in its 10th edition (http://10e.devbio.com/article.php?id=266), published June 2013.
Hermaphroditism is when an animal has both testicular and ovarian tissues. (to my understanding, thus not applicable to Semenya lacking ovaries, but that's not the point)
OK, so Gilbert is only interested in the animal kingdom, while other authorities also use the term for plants, but Gilbert serves to point out that Prof Ross Tucker is only spouting one view regarding the "biological definition" of hermaphroditism, namely that of the new-think generation.