Talk:Intersex/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Terminology section

The terminology section has issues. I feel like the mention of Disorders of sex development, endosex, the term hermaphrodite comes off as a little irrelevant to the title of the article.

I think some of these would be better at an outline article. Maybe someone should make an outline of intersex topics. There is already an article for Outline of transgender topics and Outline of LGBT topics.CycoMa (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Personally I think outline articles should be deprecated. They serve no purpose over and above inline wikilinks, navboxes, and categories, and are mere collections of links that require manual curation. Wastes of time. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah not too much of a fan of those either. But this article feels like it's kind of drifting away from the title. I think maybe some of these should be in the see also section.CycoMa (talk) 04:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Intersex is a social collective term. Just LBGTQ. The difference between "intersex" and LBGTQ is "intersex" individuals are born with physical disorders caused by genetic mutations or hormonal imbalances caused by chemicals in fetal development. Medically in the general populace, LBGTQ like the majority of humans are born male or female. There is NO OTHER SEX. Objectiverealist (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mquindoy, Docwoods12, Dchnggg, Xmrlmem. Peer reviewers: Jiangyad.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Whoever composed this article forgot something...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_(film)#Plot

I hate to be obvious, but you neglected to include one of your own articles or references to a movie that's all about an androgynous person.

I saw the movie Predestination over a decade ago, and it still to this day never ceases to amaze me -- the entire plot, the convolutions, the time travel concept, etc. I also was inspired to read the short story "All You Zombies" by Robert Heinlein, and was impressed as to how closely the director and staff followed the story line.

Anyway, I'm sure you could probably do a little 'tweak' and include this movie under your "Media" section of your intersex article. Rudrani1971 (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Inappropriate content from Encyclopedia Britannica

The article before my addition of the Disputed-section tag said:

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Individuals with mixtures of male and female characters (usually sterile) are known as intersexes.

There are several problems here:

• The Britannica article is about organisms in general, whereas this Wikipedia article is about intersexuality in humans (as clearly stated at the top of the article). It is misleading to use such a general definition to explain how the term "intersex" is used in humans: in the latter case it is both a medical term and a political term for a community, and its scope as a medical term is not the same as for other organisms.
• The terminology used for a minority (often stigmatized) human group clearly requires more sensitivity than in an article about so-called "sexual anomalies" of organisms in general. Arguably, using "intersexes" as a noun is offensive (violating Wikipedia:Offensive material) in a similar way to using "transgenders" as a noun would be for trans people. Similarly the term "sterile" could be viewed as insensitive for humans, where "infertile" would normally be used.
• Intersex people are not in general, or even "usually", infertile. So the current article content gives false and misleading medical information, which is a serious issue. It actually depends on the specific condition (and also, infertility in intersex people is often iatrogenic rather than caused by the intersex condition itself). Humans also have motivation, intelligence, and medical technology for overcoming fertility issues that does not apply to other organisms. See and , which I attempted to give as references but apparently they weren't "reliable" enough. (I would argue that they are actually more reliable than Britannica in this specific context, being written by intersex people themselves — specifically, intersex people who are experts on the subject.)

Apparently just deleting the Britannica content wasn't acceptable either; it was reverted by someone who falsely claimed that I hadn't given an edit reason. --2A00:23C5:1203:CE01:8CFC:3156:B518:2265 (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Pinging recent editors: @Beauty School Dropout, IAmChaos, Sideswipe9th, Fakescientist8000, DarknessGoth777, Vsmith, Cadenrock1, and Firefangledfeathers:

• Do you have a reliable source stating that "intersexes" is derogatory? A quick Google search of "intersexes derogatory" doesn't show anything.
• Humans are invertebrates. Physiologically, intersex conditions and information would seem to generally apply to all invertebrates. Why is using a source that discusses both an issue?
• Your sources do not give fertility rates. [InterACT]: "The short answer is: maybe" and [Cary Gabriel Costello], who is a sociologist states: "...though I certainly don't believe that to be true.". You have not supplied a source supporting your case here. So, "usually sterile infertile" may or may not be the case.
• The message left on your talk page was "without giving a valid reason" not "hadn't given an edit reason". Please don't misrepresent others. Your edit summary claim didn't cite a source, appears to be wp:OR, and therefore not a valid reason.
• I don't see any reason not to change "sterile" to "infertile". Other opinions?

Adakiko (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

On the definition itself, I suspect there's a better source we could use than Britannica. However for the other issues:

• I disagree that the Britannica article is about organisms in general. Unless I've opened the wrong link, after using the term "intersexes" it discusses Klinefelter's syndrome and Turner syndrome. Both of which to my knowledge are exclusive to humans.
• While I don't know about derrogitary, as like Adakiko I can't find any sources asserting that, it is quite dated. I believe the current term in use is "disorders of sex development" or "DSD". From a quick search the NHS use DSD as the primary term, and say that Some adults and young people with DSD prefer to use the term intersex.
• Infertility. From the background/literature review section of this 2020 paper, there is evidence that counters the narrative on it being "usually infertile". Per WP:MEDRS we'd need a review paper to support this, especially when it comes to fertility rates. I don't see an issue changing the language from "sterile" to "infertile" though.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I think this is fine to include. On the matter of changing "sterile", we usually don't alter quotes (obviously brackets are required whenever that is done) and this doesn't seem to be generally considered offensive such that we should. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• I think we can find a much better source than WP:BRITANNICA. I'd be okay removing it entirely just because it's from Britannica–it doesn't meet WP:MEDRS. ––FormalDude talk 15:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Since interleaving is apparently frowned on, I'll make my comments in a block, but in a way that avoids obscuring what I'm replying to.

In reply to "Do you have a reliable source stating that "intersexes" is derogatory? A quick Google search of "intersexes derogatory" doesn't show anything.":

For a start it's incorrect, as shown by the usage notes at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intersex . "Intersex" can be used as an adjective to apply to people, or as a noun meaning the condition of being intersex. Asking for a reliable source for it being offensive (I didn't say "derogatory") is the wrong standard of proof: we're not putting in the article a claim that "intersex" as a noun referring to a person is potentially offensive. I'm telling you that it's true, and if you want to disprove that you should find an intersex person who will say "no, that's actually fine". I'm trans and I'm telling you that using "transgender" as a noun is definitely offensive, and that "intersex" works analogously. In general, reliable sources for some term being offensive aren't required to remove it from articles. (There is no reason to believe that it's not offensive for humans just because it's in Britannica, I'm afraid, especially when the Britannica context was "in man and other verbebrates".)

In reply to "Humans are invertebrates.":

No, they are vertebrates.

In reply to "Physiologically, intersex conditions and information would seem to generally apply to all invertebrates. Why is using a source that discusses both an issue?":

You're mistaken in assuming that an article intended to cover the general case will adequately or correctly cover the specific case. There are several reasons why humans are different here:

• Humans are motivated and intelligent enough to reason about the causes of infertility, and they have medical technology to aid them. (In principle, medical technology could be used to treat sterility in non-human intersex vertebrates, but that wouldn't happen except maybe in a scientific experiment.)
• Infertility in intersex people is often iatrogenic (caused by surgery soon after birth) rather than caused by the intersex condition itself. This doesn't happen for other (vertebrate) organisms, where there is no social pressure to "correct" intersex conditions. While technically this is still infertility affecting an intersex person, it arguably misleads by omission to make a claim that sterility is a "usual" feature of intersexuality in humans without pointing out this potential cause.
• The claim is logically unjustified because "usually" quantified over vertebrates does not imply "usually" quantified over humans. Humans may be (and are, for the reasons above!) an atypical case. In case it isn't clear, here's a more stark example of the same logical fallacy: "Most sheep are white. Black sheep are sheep. Therefore most black sheep are white."

In reply to "Your sources do not give fertility rates. [InterACT]: "The short answer is: maybe" and [Cary Gabriel Costello], who is a sociologist states: "...though I certainly don't believe that to be true.". You have not supplied a source supporting your case here. So, "usually sterile infertile" may or may not be the case."

If it "may or may not be the case", then it's an unjustified claim (whether part of a sourced definition or not) and must be deleted. That is, you are putting the burden of proof in the wrong place. The article makes a claim (which is a medical claim, therefore requiring a high standard of evidence under WP:MEDRS): that "usually" intersex humans (since the article is specific to that case) are sterile. Britannica only claimed that "usually", intersex vertebrates are sterile. The "usually" may hold over vertebrates but not over humans. So the claim is not supported, to the required standard, by the existing source. Either the claim must be deleted, or those arguing for it to be kept must provide a reliable source, for humans, to the WP:MEDRS standard.

In reply to "The message left on your talk page was "without giving a valid reason" not "hadn't given an edit reason". Please don't misrepresent others. Your edit summary claim didn't cite a source, appears to be wp:OR, and therefore not a valid reason.":

The edit message is "Reverting edit(s) by 2A00:23C5:1203:CE01:8CFC:3156:B518:2265 (talk) to rev. 1092818799 by Sideswipe9th: Unexplained content removal (UV 0.1.3)". The content removal was not unexplained. If this message is created by a tool then the tool should be fixed to use something like "Unexplained or invalid reason for content removal". In any case, no explanation was provided at the time for why the given reason was invalid. You're now saying the deletion edit message didn't cite a source, which is extremely pedantic because a) my preceding edit did cite two sources and the deletion message referenced that, and b) *removing* a claim from an article does not require a WP:RS source that the claim is false. You're also saying that the edit reason is WP:OR, and again, this is applying a stricter standard to removal of claims than is actually required. Only claims that remain in an article after an edit must avoid WP:OR. If a claim is merely uncertain, especially for medical information, it has to be removed. Common sense tells us that this must not require proof that it is false, otherwise any old rubbish unfalsifiable claim could be added and then would be unreasonably difficult to remove.

In reply to "I don't see any reason not to change "sterile" to "infertile". Other opinions?"

I was incorrect to imply that they are synonyms. See https://www.oviahealth.com/guide/100901/infertility-vs-sterility/ . So "sterile" should not be changed to "infertile", although this does not support retaining its use at all.

In reply to "I disagree that the Britannica article is about organisms in general. Unless I've opened the wrong link, after using the term "intersexes" it discusses Klinefelter's syndrome and Turner syndrome. Both of which to my knowledge are exclusive to humans.":

Here's the quotation with more context preserved:

"In man and other vertebrates, male and female individuals usually have distinctive characters in addition to the primary one of producing either sperm or eggs. Individuals with both male and female functions are known as hermaphrodites. While this is the normal condition in some lower animals and in many flowering plants, it is so rare in mammals as to be regarded as anomalous. Individuals with mixtures of male and female characters (usually sterile) are known as intersexes. In man there occur two rare conditions that, according to recent evidence, represent partial sex reversal."

That is, the paragraph starts "In man and other vertebrates", and then after the sentence quoted, it restricts to "In man". The scope of applicability of the quoted sentence is to "man and other vertebrates". Incidentally, "hermaphrodites" is not a term correctly used for humans (as already seems to have been done to death in previous discussion, and I don't want to reopen that can of worms; but it supports my point).

In reply to "I believe the current term in use is "disorders of sex development" or "DSD"":

"Disorders of sex development" is a highly controversial term for reasons already explained in the article. But we need not consider this much further because the usage of "intersex" as a noun (for persons who have an intersex condition) is grammatically incorrect, even if you disagree with me that it's likely offensive. Something that purports to be a definition of "intersex" should not use the word in a way that grammatically conflicts with common usage (no, I don't need a WP:RS to argue here for what the common usage is; it just needs to be correct).

In reply to "From the background/literature review section of this 2020 paper, there is evidence that counters the narrative on it being "usually infertile". Per WP:MEDRS we'd need a review paper to support this, especially when it comes to fertility rates.":

Thanks for finding that paper (although, I think it concentrates on women having fertility problems who are also intersex, and therefore doesn't explicitly consider the incidence of fertility issues in all intersex people). I agree that WP:MEDRS is needed for any claim about sterility here. The existing Britannica source does not support that intersex humans are "usually sterile" to a WP:MEDRS level. We don't need a review paper to remove that claim as long as it is in doubt. Adding information about fertility issues could be a further improvement to the article, but it should probably go somewhere else, not in the definition section.

In reply to "I think this [the Britannica definition] is fine to include.":

On what basis is a source that something is "usually" true over all vertebrates "fine to include" in a way that misleads readers into thinking it is "usually" true for humans? That doesn't follow.

--2A00:23C5:1203:CE01:688E:724D:9C4F:7AD3 (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Note to IP editor

Leaving this note here because your IP address seems unstable and I can't be sure if I leave it on your talk page that you'll receive it. Please see WP:INTERPOLATE for why interleaving replies as you have been doing is not appropriate for a talk page discussion. Instead if you want to respond to each specific point in order, do something like I have done where I and Akakiko have done using a few words to make it obvious which points you're replying to. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

You can also number your replies using a numbered list. Just make them all in one block, with one signature (at the very end), and without breaking up previous commenters' posts. ––FormalDude talk 14:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

References

OMG, we think we are better than Britannica. Our egos are writing checks we can't cash. It is no wonder people consider Wikipedia a joke. The very fact that we have issue with Britannica tells me we have editors that have no business doing this. No principles or core values laid down by the founders and current management of Wikipedia. I can't stop laughing. Stjoan1 (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Lol, this page is truly protected by a bunch hens that have been trained to peck on a keyboard. Stjoan1 (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, if only we could generate content like this! 😂😂😂  Tewdar  18:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

"Female pseudohermaphroditism" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Female pseudohermaphroditism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 6#Female pseudohermaphroditism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Tazuco 03:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Explaining the word 'notion'

Bringing the discussion here, as @Stjoan1: has been edit-warring against three other editors now to add increasingly elaborate explanations as to the word 'notions'. Let's please discuss here - Alison ^talk 23:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• Same editor just went on to revert me and ignore the talk page discussion I set up, and the second warning in my edit comment. They're now blocked for 24 hours. I've no dog in this fight myself, so please welcome them back and try work with them to understand their concerns once their block expires - Alison ^talk 23:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Good. Obviously, we don't interrupt our articles to add random definitions of common English words. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

It was a minor edit that since certain people can't find a decent definition for Intersex in humans opens the door for a new legitimate section on "Controversy". Who would like to volunteer to write it? Stjoan1 (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

We can start with, "“Intersex” is an umbrella term used to describe people born with sex traits that do not fit binary medical definitions of male or female sexual or reproductive anatomy. Intersex populations are born with these differences in sex traits or may develop them during childhood. Human sex development is naturally diverse, with many variations possible in genitalia, hormones, internal anatomy, and/or chromosomes. It is estimated that up to 1.7 percent of the population has an intersex trait and that approximately 0.5 percent of people have clinically identifiable sexual or reproductive variations."

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/key-issues-facing-people-intersex-traits/ Stjoan1 (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a better definition that has the word "notion" in it because "notion" is synonymous with "belief.". The UN definition is weak because of this. Intersex is either real or not? Stjoan1 (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I think notion is correct, because it means beliefs - but societal ones. The UN definition is acknowledging that the definition - or the exact boundaries of such - are cultural. The lay-term 'micropenis' is an example in some cultures where people have made a condition out of a penis being small. In a culture with stricter sexual norms that prevent discussion of penises neither partner may know there's a difference from normal as long as pregnancy results. InverseZebra (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)