That is a historical misuse and misunderstanding of the word hermaphrodite, even if still used colloquially. Technically it refers to a species where individuals can produce both types of gametes. No human in history could do that.

But the people you refer to, now called intersex, aren't always truly intersex either.  It depends on definitions though.  And that is where none of us will ever agree.

For instance, you could define it by gamete production. However, some people fail to produce either. What are they?

You could define it by choromosomes, however in very rare cases people can be chimeras of both sexes (I don't know if that ever actually happened). This seems the most reliable, the most likely definition to leave no (or vanishingly low) ambiguity.

In practice historically it was defined by the appearance of genitalia, which is pretty piss-poor science IMHO.

If someone is born with a tootsie-roll maybe-penis-maybe-clitoris, doctors historically did an "emergency operation" to force their genitals to be one way or the other, and instructed the parents on how important it was to reinforce the sex that the doctor chose. IMHO that is abusive. Horrific actually.

There are so many sexual characteristics that socially matter. Who you are attracted to and who is attracted to you. Whether two people can bear children. How you think of yourself based on (probably) pre-natal testosterone levels or something like that. You can look at chromosomes, but that is no guarantee that it will align with how the person turns out after puberty. So it probably makes sense to let the person remain intersex and let them choose when they get older.

Why am I writing a book on this topic I know virtually nothing about? I am going to stop typing now.