I'd rather have no nutsack with hermaphrodites as well. And that only makes sense. The two bits of protoplasm that go on to be either our testicles or ovaries can only be one of the other. (Which I figure is why herms are universally infertile, those bits trying to be both end up being neither) So it makes no sense for herms to have a massive nutsack. Especially when our nuts start out in our abdomen and only drop down later on in life. A herm's 'bits' trying to be both, it would make sense for whatever they become to never drop, since they don't successfully become anything.
Yeah, hermaphrodites are a real thing. All of you going on about there's only two genders are wrong, there's three. They're just vanishingly rare, usually (in the past, dunno bout now) assigned the female gender at birth and have the extra bits surgically removed, cause that's easier than yanking out the female bits. And, as far as I've ever read or heard, are universally infertile, as mentioned above. As a mutation, so far, it's a failed one. I wonder if eventually the mutation will mutate and have those two bits of protoplasm make one ovary and one testicle each. That could solve the infertility problem.
I mean, if we're talking about human 'hermaphroditism', it is real... Sort of... Just incredibly rare and not exactly a 'sex', per se, but rather a severe mutation; typically referred to as 'intersex'. In most cases the genitalia are dysfunctional to some degree, incapable of reproduction due to internal issues with the anatomy and formation itself or due malformed organs themselves.
It'd be akin to claiming someone with 5 micro penises is a new 'sex/gender'.
It's simply not accurate, as the term is more used to refer to more regularly-occuring, stable sexual phenotypes.
As for newhalfs/shemales tho'... Whilst about as uncommon as true hermaphroditic traits in humans, it does at least tend to carry less complications due to anatomical viability; specifically the internal space requirements and hormonal stability.
It's also relatively easy and common by comparison to surgically/hormonally alter an individual to have a woman's shape and a man's genital set, whereas there aren't really any reasonably safe or even theoretical methods to introduce an entire set genitalia and the required internals to an individual.
Still. In the context of a fictional setting, I think it's totally fine to provide a mix of options.
Cock'n'balls, cunt, booba/flat, etc.
...Tho' I can't help but feel the concept of a cock without balls is incredibly flawed from even the most basic understanding of the anatomy itself. Like... There's simply not enough space within the loins for 'internal testicles' as so many refer to if the same space is already occupied by the internals required for a functional twat, let alone the ovaries and uterus.
At best such a pecker would be little more than an oversized, funny-lookin' clit with no ability to bust a nut...
What with the lack of said nuts.
Could probably still drool precum since the prostate can handle Cowper's fluid tho'.