Talk:Intersex/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

There are issues with that AIS-DSD Support Group survey.

https://www.accordalliance.org/f1000-commentary-attitudes-towards-disorders-of-sex-development-nomenclature-among-affected-individuals/ The participation rate was only 35% which is a very low turnout rate. Also 60% of the participants had a form of AIS which means there is a lack of representation for other DSDs.

At least delete this comment. It was honestly pointless.CycoMa (talk) 08:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Leonard Sax comments

This is a WP:Reliable source, simple as that. CycoMa and I were right to restore it. Anyone who claims it is not an RS will need to show what part of the guidelines it supposedly fails. For my part, this estimate was published in a highly respected WP:MEDRS journal - the Journal of Sex Research - and that is where the reliability comes from. It has been cited 396 times on Google Scholar, indicating significant use by others. WP:NPOV states clearly that it means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic, not "only views I personally agree with". Quite the opposite: putting Fausto-Sterling's estimate without the criticism it has received is POV, since reliable sources dispute that. Sax's personal political views, whatever they are, are 100% irrelevant. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Sax has no relevant expertise, and his views are sharply at variance with the consensus in the field. As I wrote on my talk page:

Sax's political views and his conservative views on gender are very much relevant to this issue since they form his motivation to minimise the prevalence of intersex conditions. He's deliberately misleading readers by pretending that conditions like Klinefelter's and Turner's are not intersex, even though there is no debate about this point, and Wikipedia is misleading the reader by citing his opinion as relevant; his view is not taken seriously among experts on intersex conditions. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Your speculations about whatever 'forms his motivation' are completely irrelevant (and could easily have the political polarity reversed and be applied to Anne Fausto-Sterling). Your claim that his view is not taken seriously is not only just an easily-dismissed assertion, but it is in fact rebutted by the fact it was published in the Journal of Sex Research and cited 396 times. As for what counts as intersex, there is no divinely-revealed truth on this; experts debate these matters, and we do not take sides per WP:NPOV. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

LOL, no, they couldn't. Sax is an ignorant right-wing hack and an abysmal source on anything, especially a field in which he, unlike Fausto-Sterling, has zero expertise in (a fact you keep ignoring), even if he managed to get a paper into the JoSR somehow (even the most prestigious journals sometimes publish patent nonsense) – see evidence for his ignorance here. You, on the other hand, have presented zero evidence that there is actual, substantive debate about the intersex status of the conditions Sax arbitrarily excludes, and that his ideas are seriously engaged with and discussed anywhere in the field. Bare numbers of citations prove nothing; moreover, Sax's paper is from 2002 and relies on even older literature. Not exactly cutting-edge. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Frozen: Pinging you for a third opinion. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Sax is an accredited MD, I know virtually nothing about him other than what he has written in the paper that is cited which is credible WP:SOURCE. His paper is plainly scientific and well supported by the evidence he provides. Take a look at all the clinical refs on Late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia (that is the real crux of the matter given it makes up 88% of Fausto-Sterling's number), I've read through most of 'em I don't think there is a single instance of 'intersex' in there. Just saying a paper is from 2002 doesn't make it incorrect. Maneesh (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

So, more of the same personal opinions, plus using some blog post to argue against a WP:MEDRS journal. Anyway, let's look at some of the use by others:

• 2016, in Hormone Research in Paediatrics, Karger Publishers: There are no clear estimates of the incidence rate of subjects presenting with ambiguous genitalia at birth, and only a proportion of them present a major challenge regarding male or female assignment. However, it has been estimated to be approximately 1 in 4,500-5,500 [5]. (source 5 is Sax 2002) [1]
• 2016, in Sexual Development, Karger Publishers: In the newborn, truly ambiguous genitalia that may pose a problem for binary gender assignment has an estimated incidence of 1:4,500-5,500 births [Thyen et al., 2006; Sax, 2002]....TDSD/OTDSD are estimated to occur in 1:100,000 births [Sax, 2002]. [2]
• 2018, in Social Studies of Science, SAGE Publishing: After considering both Fausto-Sterling and Sax's estimates, it states: This lack of consensus informed the introduction of the DSD taxonomy. It treated both with the same WP:WEIGHT. It later speaks in detail about [t]he debate within the medical profession about the categorical inclusion or exclusion of Turner and Klinefelter’s syndromes, contradicting your claims above about "deliberately misleading" and "no debate". [3]
• 2019, in Gender and Sexuality Development: Contemporary Theory and Research, Springer: Blackless et al. (2000) defined intersex very broadly as individuals who deviate from the “Platonic ideal” of sex dimorphism; accordingly, they included several conditions (e.g., Klinefelter syndrome, vaginal agenesis, congenital adrenal hyperplasia) that affect the development of sexual characters but can be classified as “intersex” only in a loose sense (Sax, 2002). If one restricts the term to conditions that involve a discordance between chromosomal and phenotypic sex, or a phenotype that cannot be classified unambiguously as either male or female, the frequency of intersex is much lower—almost certainly less than 0.02% (Sax, 2002; see also Hull, 2003). [4]

So, yeah, it's a WP:RS. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The sources that Crossroads included in his "06:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)" post are convincing; they support the argument that both sides should be included in the article. I also appreciate that he took the time to dig into the literature on this. It made it so that I wouldn't have to list sources on the matter here on the talk page to see what others think. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Why no photos of intersex genitals?

Why no photos of intersex genitals?

If Wikipedia has pictures of penises and vulvae on those pages, why none of intersex genitals?

I've looked around on line. It seems like drawings of intersex people outnumber the pictures and that a lot of the photos seem to be quite old.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18a:8301:a3c0:c411:fdbd:4211:674f (talk • contribs)

Because most, if not all, intersex genital medical photographs were taken during the course of human rights abuses during the 20th century and the early 21st century. Including it here would be akin to including actual child pornography on the WP page about child abuse. --BenM (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

(I will say up front that I have no opinion on the specific matter, this purpose of this post is only for discussion of the policy statement that was put forth above.)......while I cannot disagree regarding the nature of the circumstances that these medical photos were taken under (but I assume you meant 19th and 20th centuries?) I disagree with the child porn comparison, for these reasons: ultimately, images/photos depicting abuse per se (including of children) is not banned on wikipedia if it is not against the law, because wikipedia is not censored. Some of the most gruesome and well known examples that come to mind are photos from inside Nazi concentration camps and the like. Thus, depictions of torture, crimes against humanity and other acts of abuse are not automatically banned on account of the degree of abusiveness or cruelty.

Moving back to an example that is closer in scope to the OP's question, and BenM's response: Wikipedia does include, in articles having to do with human anatomy development, full-body, front and back and without clothes, medical photos of children (boy and girl) in all the stages of development from, I think, age 8 to 15. I would assume that any intersex photos that exist in academic literature are likely on a similar level..but maybe BenM has specific knowledge about this that I don't, and the photos of this topic are exceptionally offensive. Anyway, that's all Firejuggler86 (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

From what I recall, the scope of differences in the bodies of intersex people is relatively wide, and therefore, there's not one "typical" representative example that could be included on the article, if this is the issue. Outside of that...I have to say, personally, it does seem a little distateful. Maybe this is unencyclopedic, but it doesn't take much investigation to learn that when it comes to intersex people, many people's first thoughts are "what do their bits look like?", rather than "what does intersex mean?".

The unwarranted and unconsented-to medical intervention of intersex people's bodies continues to this day; far from being remaindered to the 19th and 20th centuries, iirc, it's not actually illegal in the United Kingdom yet. No idea about the US. But I know that the bodily integrity of intersex people isn't a topic we've advanced upon very much; therefore, I don't think it's likely that any photos of the genitalia of intersex people, unless taken and uploaded by themselves, is likely to be ethically taken, or, to be honest, necessary. Diagrams of the differences in genital development of intersex people would suffice, and I think it'd honestly be more useful. There's such a range in differences, and there's nothing in a photo that couldn't be gained in a diagram. It's not like the Wikimedia Commons link at the bottom of the article is going to disappear.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 12:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Definition of intersex

According to the Wiktionary entry, intersex is: "Any of a variety of innate conditions (in a dioecious species) whereby an individual has sex characteristics relating to both sexes." This would not include purely chromosomal or hormonal differences that do not result in different characteristics. We take our definition from the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, but is that really a source for this kind of thing? What is the difference between Differences of sexual development and Intersex as we are currently defining them? Fnordware (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Interesting to note that the word "intersex" does not appear in our Klinefelter syndrome and Turner syndrome articles, and only appears in the Late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia article in reference to the controversy mentioned above. Fnordware (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Honestly I kind of agree that citing the UN is probably not the best option.

There definition of intersex is too broad and it only thinks about humans even tho intersex has been documented in other species.

Plus I’m speculating that the reason the definition is so broad is merely because of politics. Like for some reason MRKH and CAH is classified as intersex. Even tho CAH is varies from case to case and MRKH is a weird choice.

Also some political groups consider PCOS intersex. CycoMa (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Jumping in to say that maybe looking at some intersex rights groups and how they define intersex would be a good place to start. Medical definitions are one thing, but they can be removed from how people define themselves, for what reasons and how this has changed over time. See what people who identify as intersex are saying first, and then see what people who aren't intersex are saying. -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I do think there is a problem with that stance.

It can lead to confusion.

If being intersex is merely based on if someone identifies as intersex then the whole 1.7% and 0.5% is basically meaningless.

Also political groups are honestly less reliable because they are bias by design. CycoMa (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

This subject falls squarely under WP:MEDRS, so medical sources, such as professional expert bodies and review articles, should take priority. At the same time, we'll still have to cover the UN and advocacy-related definitions too. It's possible that the lead sentence could be tweaked in accord with medical sources if they differ from the UN definition, but there is definitely debate in the sources about how to define the topic and we have to relay that per WP:NPOV, as long as WP:Due weight is being followed. That is why the prevalence estimates vary so much. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, the Wiktionary definition above was only added last month, and I just mostly undid it because it failed to reflect that there are intersex conditions (or, conditions which are referred to as intersex, which is what Wiktionary—at least—is concerned with) involving gonadal agenesis or dysgenesis, or having 45 instead of 46 chromosomes, which is a lack of certain characteristics rather than presence of characteristics of both male and female sexes. Regarding "This would not include purely chromosomal or hormonal differences that do not result in different characteristics": wouldn't someone's chromosomes be one of their characteristics? Our entry on Sexual characteristics seems to list both chromosomes and "usual level of sex hormones" as sex characteristics, although the lead of that article is less than clear.
Anyway, if any changes need to be made to the lead of this article, we can also see if any changes need to be made to the Wiktionary definition (either the one added last month or the one I reinstated today). :) -sche (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Intersex being defined as organisms with characteristics relating to both sexes is how sources in biology define it.

Or at least ones I could find. Because for some reason biological sources don’t talk about intersex that much. CycoMa (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I just realized the hermaphrodite section has it’s issues.

I noticed the issues in that section so I fixed it up a little. But, I must admit there is still some information I don’t know about that part honestly.

Like I get why calling a intersex as a hermaphrodite stigmatizing but, I don’t get the whole.

“Hermaphrodite is used for animal and plant species in which the possession of both ovaries and testes is either serial or concurrent, and for living organisms without such gonads but present binary form of reproduction, which is part of the typical life history of those species; intersex has come to be used when this is not the case.”

That section just seems very wordy. Honestly I haven’t read all the sources in this article but it appears someone didn’t add a source or they added a unreliable/biased source in the section. CycoMa (talk) 04:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind I removed that section since the source is obvious bias and has no idea what it’s talking about.CycoMa (talk) 04:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Cause of Intersex#Causes mentions pesticides, but given citation does not mention this cause

The cited source "True Hermaphrodite: A Case Report" makes no mention of pesticides being a potential cause. Is this about the whole They are turning the freaking frogs gay thing?

I added a an inline note and unless this is challenged, I'm going to remove it in the near future. SkSlick (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I suppose someone misread that source CycoMa (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I removed it now. If someone would still like to raise an issue, he may reply here. SkSlick (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no issue with you removing it, if a source does get found I will put it back.CycoMa (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

What was wrong with one of the surveys

Can you please explain in detail what was wrong with survey I added?

The source was from legit medical professionals.CycoMa (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It was explained in the edit summaries given. However, instead of reaching out to either the editors in question or posting on the Talk page first, you chose to edit war.

The problem as I understand it was the inclusion of a primary source, though other editors more well-versed in medical articles on Wikipedia can probably give a better description.

Please do not edit war if you have questions or issues in the future; it does not improve the project, does not get your point across, is a pain to wade through - seriously, like five reverted edits of little improvement - and just fast tracks you into being blocked indefinitely. -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay I’ll try to avoid a situation like that.CycoMa (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

hatnote

@Crossroads: As WikiLeon pointed out, a hatnote to Intersex exists at the top of Unisex. Is that something not worth considering? Should that one be removed, should this one be re-added, or should one only exist at that article? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I always go by the principle that unnecessary hatnotes are ugly clutter. I don't think anyone would type "intersex" when looking for "unisex"; I feel the reverse is slightly more plausible, but that could maybe go too. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

More definitions of intersex

I know have seen various sources define intersex differently. I also believe biologists also have a different definition of intersex. CycoMa (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Intersex isn't really a clinical term or a biological term in the context of humans. Sax addresses this best and this is thankfully in the article.When it is used, the authors are using it in specific contexts (not to describe the whole organism). Maneesh (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you are technically right, intersex isn't technically a clinical term anymore. There are still some biologists who use the term intersex though.

I have seen some biological sources for this. But, I'm not entirely sure if it's a term widely used by biologists. CycoMa (talk) 03:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

It really isn't. E.g. plants are "hermaphroditic" in that they contain both male and female parts, but they don't (normally) contain parts that are somehow a mix of both. Would enjoy seeing sources that would suggest my claim is wrong. Maneesh (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Many biology sources I have seen would define hermaphrodite as an organism that can produce both male and female gametes, and define intersex as an organism that characteristics of both sexes.

I saw this in Britiannica, the book Biology or Reproduction, Ecyclopedia of reproduction, and this other book about sexual reproduction.

I can't currently link anything since I'm on my phone.

I'll probably come back later, find these see and what everyone thinks. CycoMa (talk) 03:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)