Talk:Intersex/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Requested semi-protection until Lady Gaga rumours subside

WP:Requests for page protection#Intersexuality

Gender identity

The other day I made an edit that removed the statement that all people have a gender identity. It seems to have led to a couple more people making edits, with the current result being:

Like all people, intersex people can have any gender identity, or none at all.

This ostensibly seems to have the same meaning as having the statement removed altogether, since it says "any or none". However, it frankly doesn't satisfy me. The "none" part seems like a nod to "agender" identity, if I read the implication correctly, but the problem is that certain people don't identify with even the concept of gender identity whatsoever.

Let me put it this way: I know that I'm a male homo sapiens by virtue of having all typical anatomic features of a male mammal. It could be that I have an unknown intersex condition, whose revelation would simply change my knowledge (as evidence going contrary to so-far held beliefs should change the mind of any rational person), but that's really all there is to it. I don't "identify" with any sex or gender (acknowledging that doing so would mean identifying with a certain position in an unjust social power hierarchy), and I believe that people who do so have been influenced by their culture in such a way that they put undue importance to their sexual anatomy, elevating it to the status of a social identity, being unaware that this is based on and supports unjust power hierarchies in society. Is my position ideological? Yes, very much (gender abolitionism / radical feminism). Is the position that all people must be categorized according to gender identity, including "agender", also ideological? Yes, very much. Obviously, Wikipedia should acknowledge the existence of the ideologies without taking sides.

This is why I was fine with simply removing the one sentence that said that everyone has a gender identity. The result was: "Like most people, most intersex people self-identify as either a man or woman. Some intersex individuals may be raised as a girl or boy but then identify with another gender identity later in life, while most do not." It's true that most people self-identify as a man or a woman. Acknowledging this doesn't necessarily validate the ideology behind it, so that statement is fine. It's also true that some intersex persons are raised as a girl/boy, i.e. groomed into that identity, but later identify with another "gender identity". The wording could be improved from an ideological point of view to acknowledge that raising someone as a girl/boy means grooming them into a social hierarchy and blah blah, but of course I don't expect that from Wikipedia so the statement is fine; while it can be interpreted just as fine from the point of view of the opposite ideology, it doesn't explicitly validate it, so no complaints.

But the current wording goes back to validate gender ideology, by stating explicitly that a gender identity is simply something of which you can have one or have none ("agender"). It takes a stretch to interpret this to mean, for instance, that some intersex people may have freed themselves of the gender into which they were groomed, or may be struggling to do so, while it can be interpreted very easily to mean that every person fits naturally into a neat category according to "gender identity", including the "agender" category. The wording is such that it can easily be interpreted in terms of one ideology, but not the other, therefore validating one ideology but not the other. That's a problem.

I would propose we go back to the state after my edit, but apparently that was not perfectly in line with the sources. I've looked into the sources now, and will shortly make an edit to use wording that I find appropriate with regard to both ideologies as well as the sources. I hope it will satisfy everyone. 2A02:908:C30:3540:221:CCFF:FE66:68F0 (talk) 12:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Neither the source nor my edit used the word "agender", and neither did my edit summary, which referred to "those without a gender identity". I don't see why including "none at all" with regard to gender implies a specific ideology. Funcrunch (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being a bit (or quite) pedantic about this. When I read the sentence "like all people, intersex people can have any gender identity, or none at all", it reads to me as if the implication is that every person fits somewhere in a taxonomy based on what gender identity they have (or none as a special category), and this taxonomy is being naturalized/validated in the language. It also sounds a bit like a pick and choose game. Maybe I was reading too much into it? Please tell if you think the simplified language is in turn problematic in some other ways. 2A02:908:C30:3540:221:CCFF:FE66:68F0 (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I meant "none" to mean just that; "none". Not a "special category" of noneness. The specific wording in the source is "An intersex person may be straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual or asexual, and may identify as female, male, both or neither." If there's a way to fit that "neither" into the sentence that works better than "none", feel free to wordsmith. Funcrunch (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

"(...) they put undue importance to their sexual anatomy, elevating it to the status of a social identity, being unaware that this is based on and supports unjust power hierarchies in society."

There is no doubt that there is inequity in human societies, but someone who acknowledges their sexual anatomy in a responsible way according to the biological majorities of female and male, while still being in control of how sensual aspects are shaped, does not necessarily contribute to said inequity. --lmaxmai (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Confusing line in intro

The last paragraph of the introduction currently reads "Intersex people may have any gender identity. Some intersex individuals may be raised as a girl or boy but then identify with another gender later in life, while most do not."

Maybe it's just me (someone who came to this page to find out what Intersex means and therefore has no prior knowledge) but this seems ambiguous. Does it mean most intersex people continue to identify with the gender they were raised as? Most do not identify with either gender, or any gender at all? 108.171.128.169 (talk) 13:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I replace the wording with this: "Some intersex persons may be assigned and raised as a girl or boy but then identify with another gender later in life, while most continue to identify with their assigned gender," Does this clarify the issue for you? Trankuility (talk) 05:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Medical intervention

"There is widespread evidence of pregnancy terminations arising from prenatal testing, as well prenatal hormone treatment to prevent intersex traits."

While it seems harsh to terminate a pregnancy solely because of such a variation, there should be understanding for treatment during pregnancy, attempting to spare an individual from having to go through hardships and confusion which are unnecessary, regardless of societary aspects. There is a tendency towards acceptance these days which is seemingly extremist at times. However, the limit to such acceptance founds on responsibility and reason. Without intending to isolate anyone, an individual who can biologically relate to either the female or male gender is offered reliability and is able to gain confidence, while being in control of how aspects such as sensuality are shaped on this foundation. --lmaxmai (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

This is WP:NOTAFORUM but your reasoning offers an interesting opportunity to comment on your reasoning. Even if your premise is accepted, your logic is flawed. See what I have bolded: "an individual who can biologically relate to either the female or male gender is offered reliability and is able to gain confidence," by this argument, people who are only able to relate to only one or other gender are not offered reliability, confidence. Trankuility (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Intersex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Pronoun

I was wondering what the pronoun would be in referring to an specific individual in the English language that was of the intersex gender. Rip Van Winkle, Humpty Dumpty and Frankenstein's Monster (talk) 09:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The definition in the lead section relates to bodies, not identity: an intersex person has any of several variations that "do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies". The section on Legal recognition notes a diverse range of perspectives: "Sociological research in Australia, a country with a third 'X' sex classification, shows that 19% of people born with atypical sex characteristics selected an "X" or "other" option, while 52% are women, 23% men, and 6% unsure". This means that, like with other people, it is probably best to ask if there are no obvious clues about gender identity. Trankuility (talk) 09:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, intersex relates to physical sex, not gender. Therefore, the same rules apply as they do to anyone else re. gender identity. Some intersex folks who identify with neither binary gender sometimes choose singular they. As Trankuility says, if unsure - ask. And just be respectful - Alison ^❤ 09:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

If a person whom you are talking about is agender or you are unsure of their gender, referring to them as 'they' is acceptable and will avoid any offence or uncomfortable-ness! Lam59 (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

You are evidently confusing intersex conditions with non-binary gender identities, and possibly even conflating these with androgynous appearance. However, these are all completely unrelated, in principle, or at least independent of each other.

As far as I know, most intersex people do not look in any way androgynous (nor do their genitals even look ambiguous, in general, in fact; but then, you don't usually examine a stranger's genitals, so even if you met such a person, you'd remain unaware of any ambiguous appearance down there). Moreover, most intersex people (quite possibly the vast majority of them) do identify with a binary gender, that is, as either women or men. It's just that their bodies do not completely conform to the expected norms, or did not do so when they were born, in some (often subtle) way that's not necessarily visible from the outside.

It is a frequent misconception that there's a distinctive "look", or way to appear or be intersex, but in fact, people who are intersex do not usually share this fact with others; many if not by far most people with an intersex condition are not even aware of it themselves! That's because the subject is still a huge taboo in our society. As a consequence, you've almost certainly already met or even interacted with a few intersex people in your life without coming away any the wiser. Intersex people are a small and almost completely invisible minority, which is why until recently most people knew nothing about them and weren't even aware of their existence ... apart from lurid rumours about "hermaphrodites" that have nothing to do with reality.

The only possible generalisation that I'd attempt is that among people conscious of an intersex condition in their body, a higher percentage than in the general population is going to make this a part of their identity in the form of a gender identity in contradiction to their assigned gender/sex, that is, there will likely be significantly more transgender and nonbinary-identified individuals among them – but usually that's not a political statement, but an expression that they really perceive themselves differently and that the gender/sex they were assigned at birth does not feel right.

However, there's no way to predict what will happen (though there are certain rules of thumb depending on the precise condition), and generally, intersex people still identify as either women or men, even if that's not necessarily the gender they were assigned at birth, which makes them technically transgender in these cases – though they do not necessarily identify with that term; when you know you're intersex, you're much more likely to perceive sex assignment as a fallible process that doesn't have any relevance to you and, as far as I know, though this strongly depends on the country, your legal position is different from non-intersex people who wish to undergo medical procedures or change their legal gender, so you may feel more fully validated by the law and entitled to the gender you identify with, and reject any relevance of the assigned gender is easier.

That is, for intersex people, it is easier to say "I was never a boy/girl in the first place", which means that even though many more intersex people may not identify with the gender they were assigned at birth, compared to non-intersex people, fewer of them may feel that their situation is comparable to non-intersex trans and nonbinary people. Because you are acutely aware that the "biological reality" is definitely more subtle and complicated in your case. And the law affirms that the assignment you have received was incorrect in a way it does not with non-intersex people who are trans or nonbinary.

And just to be clear on this point, most people who do not identify as plainly a woman or a man are not intersex, and most of these people do not necessarily look androgynous either, whatever that means.

Basically, there's no way to know if a person you are interacting with is intersex, whether they are nonbinary, and what pronouns they prefer; you've just got to ask, just like you ask people their name. (When necessary, however, because you cannot ask right now or for some other reason, "they" is always available as a generic pronoun.) In fact, it's always best not to assume anything about people. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

A number of intersex activists argue that the "native" gender for intersex people is neither female nor male, but a nonbinary identity. If an intersex person disagrees with their assigned gender and transition to a different one, they're trans. If they agree with their gender assignment, however, they're said to be ipso gender rather than cisgender by these activists. A cisgender intersex person has a nonbinary gender, according to them. An identity label specifically created for intersex people is called intergender. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Is known something with this respect about Julia Child?

Julia Child was an icon figure in the USA, her French cooking TV show was attended and loved by many who saw her show. I did not know nothing about her, until the film about her, with Merrill Strip as Julia. Then I look for her recipes in the web, and I was surprised that the authentic Julia, seemed a man acting as a woman, I thought it was a parody, but all videos I saw later, confirmed that she was the real Julia Child. It seems that she didn't have children, she could be an hermaphrodite or intersex with the current naming. Does anyone know something with this respect? Julia is still loved by millions in the USA, where her audience reside. In the case that she were intersexual and that were known, that would be a great lesson of acceptance for those who discriminate other people. If someone knows about this, please write it in this article. But, please, do not base that, just in speculations like mine. I am only based in how she were look in some videos and very few pictures. To include in an article this issue, should have a solid basis in bibliography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:107E:4:FF2A:218:DEFF:FE2B:1215 (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

I can't figure out how to change the current reference, so just adding this here in hope that someone more expert at wiki formatting can edit it in :)
Reference #11 "Diamond M, Beh HG (27 July 2006). Variations of Sex Development Instead of Disorders of Sex Development. Arch Dis Child" link is dead, but I think I found a copy of it somewhere else: http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2005to2009/2006-variations.html Seems to be on Wayback Machine as well. -- Kazerniel (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

General Problem

I cannot make sense of any of the discussion of discrimination, prejudice, and so on, because it is nowhere made clear how anyone other than the person who is intersex, their parents, and doctors, can know that they are intersex; unless intersex persons have some typical features that make it impossible for others to consider them to be either male or female, then nobody who is ignorant of whatever physical condition justifies their classification as intersex can have any grounds for discriminating against them.

It would be like arguing that black people who pass for white routinely have their human rights violated because they are black but do pass for white, even though nobody could tell that they are black and just passing for white because by definition they do pass for white, which means that nobody thinks they're black.

The whole article suffers because the term intersex does not denote any class of individuals with a distinctive appearance, so it makes no sense to treat the members of the class as if the necessary and sufficient conditions for someone to belong to the class were apparent to everyone, regardless of medical training or personal knowledge, under the same practical constraints of recognition that obtain when we recognize the sex or race of people in ordinary circumstances—you can tell at a glance, and the overwhelming majority of the time your judgement is vindicated because the overwhelming majority of males and females look male and female, and the overwhelming majority of blacks and whites, etc., look black and white.

If you are going to argue that the term intersex covers so many combinations that no individual in the class is prototypical, then the class is not really a class at all, and is useless to think with, because nobody can know when it applies. Wordwright (talk) 10:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

There's a whole article about Discrimination against intersex people, feel free to peruse it. --Kazerniel (talk) 12:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Problem with section on LGBT and LGBTI

In the Section "LGBT and LGBTI" one finds:

Intersex can be contrasted with homosexuality or same-sex attraction. Numerous studies have shown higher rates of same sex attraction in intersex people, with a recent Australian study of people born with atypical sex characteristics finding that 52% of respondents were non-heterosexual....

If a person is intersex, then by definition they cannot be homosexual, because they are not of either sex, so there can be no one of the "same sex" to whom they can be attracted or with whom they can have sex. The obvious logical problem is that the term "intersex" does not denote any particular combination of primary and secondary sexual characteristics; even so, if a person has a combination of genitals and secondary sex characteristics that give others good reason to presume that they are either male or female, and that give them the means to function sexually as male or female, then whatever medical reasons there are for calling them intersex are moot, since they can function socially as one sex.

Unless the relations between grounds for the medical description, genitalia, and secondary sex characteristics is made clear, the claims in this section are simple gibberish. Wordwright (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

In common language homosexual doesn't exclusively refer to the attraction of a certain sex, but also attraction to a gender. Taking that in consideration, as far as I know most intersex people identify as either male or female, so it's entirely possible for them to be homosexual towards people who share their gender identity. -- Kazerniel (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The article gives a definition of intersex by the UN that talks about sex characteristics, not sex. This is significant, as sex typically means, as you have used it Wordwright to refer to a legal classification. Intersex people are typically assigned a binary sex. Exclusion of women athletes with intersex variations is controversial because it ignores their birth assigned sex. Trankuility (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Debate how socially-biasing a child's sex is related to intersex.

Include how within the realm of intersex, it is unknown what defines the male reproductive systems and female reproductive system compared to an intersex person reproductive system. If intersex is based on unknown boundaries, that is that sex is socially made, it must be that another human being must socially-bias an infant. But we know that sex is determined through biological mechanisms. At some point after procreation, information is sent to determine a fetus's sex. Assuming the starting point of a fetus life is determined by egg insemination. During such fetus growth information processing, data can be corrupted, which causes mutations that give rise to a hermaphrodite.

Debate me and be serious! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Askingquestions2 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The boundaries you talk about are set by medicine, see for example Phall-O-Meter, Quigley scale and Prader scale. Your additions to the page lack proper citations and they misrepresent the sources. Trankuility (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Clinical measurement systems are detailed on this page in Intersex#Signs. Trankuility (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Still no mention of intersex conditions in non-human animals

Please include a "this article is about" template to guide people who come to this article looking for info on non-humans, as that seems to be well hidden. Not even Category:Intersex is useful in that regard. --Pitke (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Section 7.2 (Causes) is incomplete

The section describes the process by which typical sexual differentiation happens, but doesn't describe at all the various ways intersex people develop differently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaker Bytes (talk • contribs) 15:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Population figures

I think a lot of Leonard Sax's commentary is insensitive and out of date, so should be removed or reduced. Craigmac41 (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit to Add: I have edited that section and removed this -

His rebuttal concluded,

"The most original feature of Fausto-Sterling's book is her reluctance to classify true intersex conditions as pathological (Fausto-Sterling, 2000, p. 113) ... She often uses the word natural synonymously with normal. However, natural and normal are not synonyms. A cow may give birth to a two-headed or Siamese calf by natural processes, natural being understood as per Fausto-Sterling's definition as "produced by nature." Nevertheless, that two-headed calf unarguably manifests an abnormal condition. Fausto-Sterling's insistence that all combinations of sexual anatomy be regarded as normal... follows that classifications of normal and abnormal sexual anatomy are mere social conventions, prejudices which can and should be set aside by an enlightened intelligentsia. This type of extreme social constructionism is confusing and is not helpful to clinicians, to their patients, or to their patients' families. Diluting the term intersex to include "any deviation from the Platonic ideal of sexual dimorphism" (Blackless et al., 2000, p. 152), as Fausto-Sterling suggests, deprives the term of any clinically useful meaning."

I think Sax is being spurious trying to define the continuum of intersex conditions as normal and natural, and he is creating a false dichotomy in trying to both apply and compare the intersex continuum to a cow giving birth to a two-headed calf. It is also false equivalence and a category error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigmac41 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Deleting Sax's definition of intersex and limiting the definition of intersex to one and only one definition that some readers feel comfortable with or because they think the Sax is a "pop psychologist" is not a valid reason to delete Sax's definition of intersex. Leveni (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)