Talk:Intersex/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 → Archive 17

Not gonna lie the language section is a little vague

The language section seems to be talking about terms and language used in the intersex community.

But then it mentions “ LGBT and LGBTI” Which doesn’t really have anything to do with language.

Also I think the definition and language section should be merged into one section.

Where terms and definitions are used. CycoMa (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I’m gonna try merging the language section with terminology section because the language section seems a little too vague. I’m also gonna put certain things in other areas, like I’m moving the sentence about the consensus of intersex being normal in the medical section.CycoMa (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Whatever you're doing, CycoMa, can you do it in bite-size pieces, so the diff is readable? when an editor changes stuff all over an article, the diff is unreadable, and it's tempting just to undo the whole thing, rather than painstakingly trying to figure out what you actually changed. It's okay to make ten or twenty smaller edits each targeted to one part of the article, instead of one giant one that's all over the map. Plus, you get to add an edit summary for each one, which helps others follow what you're trying to do. Also, if someone is tempted to revert, maybe it'll only be 1/20-th of what you added, instead of the whole thing. Thank goodness you self-reverted your 4,900-byte edit; I was dreading having to analyze that diff. Mathglot (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I’m not removing anything I’m merely just rearranging things and putting certain paragraphs and sentences in different sections.

I realized that doing it really quickly wasn’t the best idea so I tried my best to go slow on it. CycoMa (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: - Maybe it would be better to lay out in more detail what exactly you're attempting to change before you go ahead and do it? I understand that it might seem a little tiring to have to repeat yourself throughout your edits, but to an article as delicate as this one, I think we'd all appreciate it, and not only that, it would make the editing process smoother, as potential issues and intentions could be sussed out before having to dig through a pile of diffs.
(Also - I notice you're using curly apostraphes and quotes - “” ’ - here; I should point out that the Manual of Style asks that users use straight apostraphes and quotes - "" ' - instead, in case you weren't aware.) --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Ineffablebookkeeper and Mathglot this is a very sensitive and important article that needs to be edited very clearly and carefully. ~ BOD ~ TALK 19:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I get that, I totally understand that but, I edited it to make information easier to find and less vague.

I removed the language section because it didn’t have a clear idea what it was about.

It gave off the idea it was about terms used regarding this topic but, for some reason LGBT and LGBTI was in that section.

Even though LGBT and LGBTI had nothing to do with terminology.

And for some reason the language section mentioned that there was a growing consensus that intersex is normal. Even though that didn’t have much to do with language.

I rearranged many things so information can be easier to find and see. Like I put the terms, definitions, etymology under the same section to make things easier to read and make the article more organized.

I get that this topic is very sensitive but, we shouldn’t have articles that are vague about certain information or articles that are unorganized. 

CycoMa (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
"Less vague" is pretty subjective, especially considering:

I removed the language section because it didn’t have a clear idea what it was about. It gave off the idea it was about terms used regarding this topic but, for some reason LGBT and LGBTI was in that section. Even though LGBT and LGBTI had nothing to do with terminology.

At the top of this Talk page, you can see that this article falls under the WikiProjects of Medicine and LGBT Studies - a paring that is there for a reason. Similar to how being Transgender is both medical and sociological in its terminology and language, Intersex people, and by extension this article, uses both medical and sociological terminology.
LGBTI literally means "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex". The fact that, in making the language "less vague" - not more precise in accuracy to what being intersex means, and the wide range of terminology used in conjunction with that - and removing the language section because you didn't have a clear idea what it was about, leads me to believe that, though well-intentioned, you really should, and I mean please, please do, consult with fellow editors first - even for smaller edits. If you do not understand something, you should leave it be if it isn't your particular medical speciality, and ask on the Talk page, just in case it is well-justified to be there.
For an article as delicate as this, you especially need to consult with others about removing an entire section, particularly if you admit that you don't have a clear idea what it's about - I don't understand half the medical terminology on various Wikipedia articles sometimes, but there is a reason we have a very extensive MOS on medical articles, which this is. Without wishing to be insulting, I really would rather you took your edits a lot slower, asked first, and, in cases where you have even a little uncertainty, just left well alone. This is a Medicine article as well as an LGBT one. We all try our best to improve articles wherever we can, but sometimes we need to recognise where others could do the job. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Dude what I’m basically saying is that certain pieces didn’t appear to belong in certain sections that’s all I am saying.

Also I just want articles to be easier to read. CycoMa (talk) 05:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Did you remove a section? I didn't see that. I think the rearrangements so far are fine. Mathglot also gave some good advice about editing small bits at a time on this sort of article. Tip, though: be extra careful in this topic area about referring to people with words like "dude", lest it be taken as a serious statement of gender rather than a sort of exclamation (best not to get exasperated anyway). Anyway, you've got the spirit of it, it looks like, and you'll gain with experience. Crossroads -talk- 06:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Issue with survey

“ published in 2017 found that 80% of Support Group respondents "strongly liked, liked or felt neutral about intersex" as a term, while caregivers were less supportive.”

The survey itself isn’t that bad but I do have one problem, the survey merged people who liked it and people who were neutral about the term. I personally think it should be a long the lines like (53% likes the term while 27% were neutral.) CycoMa (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I’m gonna try and looking at the original study but, I currently don’t have access to it. CycoMa (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

XYY and XXX are intersex according to sources that are cited in this article

Intersex is an umbrella term. The prominence of Blackless2000 in the article and the 1.7% estimate is made clear in this article: "Anne Fausto-Sterling and her co-authors said in two articles in 2000 that 1.7 percent of human births (1 in 60) might be intersex, including variations that may not become apparent until, for example, puberty, or until attempting to conceive.[152][153] Their publications have been widely quoted...". XXYY and XXX are included in that list ("Individuals with XXY, XO, XYY, XXYY, XX males, and 47,XXX females comprise the most frequently encountered deviations"), for better or worse. The current population figures section does a good job in citing that list and the positions against it. The table itself should include those conditions so that readers can evaluate the positions easily. The table also makes it clear that the overwhelming majority of 'intersex' people are simply either male or female. Maneesh (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Noting this for posterity, though as noted the broad concept of intersex-ism is not a massive interest of mine past the interactions with sex chromosome aneuploidies. Fausto-Sterling's definitions are not uncontroversial, as you note. XXYY is totally irrelevant to this conversation, it was not mentioned, the variant of interest is XYY. Neither trisomy X nor XYY are in anything near a consensus definition of intersex conditions, even those that compromise quite heavily, and defining them passingly and without further explanation as 'intersex' does a substantial disservice to readers (whom, I am afraid to note, are much more likely to take "Wikipedia put this in a table so it's true" away from articles than to evaluate table-prose disconnects and their implications). It's not a XXY-type situation where there's debate amongst both medical and advocate sources about whether the term is acceptable, it's a straight-up fringe position. Vaticidalprophet 10:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I have a lot of opinions on Fausto-Sterling, but they aren't relevant here. Those number and conditions have been "widely quoted" (805 cites on scholar), definitely not fringe. I kept reading XXYY in skimming the edit when it was XYY, sorry, but XYY is mentioned in Blackless2000 as well in the same section. The population figures section does a good job and completeness and it cites Blackless2000 upfront and says right in the first sentence "Estimates of the number of people who are intersex vary, depending on which conditions are counted as intersex.". It makes complete sense to use a table to list prevalences for each condition that is considered Blackless2000, otherwise you aren't presenting the viewpoint of that source accurately. I think the section does a pretty good job of presenting the multiple view points, being complete and still being quite accurate (sex specificity column).Maneesh (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The Sax ref, which is prominent here, does a good job at addressing XXX, XYY etc. It might be good to more comprehensively expand on Sax's perspective on what is/isn't intersex (LOCAH was the biggest issue which is the focus in that section right now). Maneesh (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I accept the position of User:Vaticidalprophet here. The community context is more complex, but that position is based on an understanding of the medical context beyond a single decades-old two-article debate about population figures. Trankuility (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Then you have to explain why the Fausto-Sterling number is cited in this article so prominently (which includes XXX and XYY) and widely quoted to this day by prominent intersex advocacy organizations; the article goes out of its way t explain this. There is nothing special about XXX and XYY in this list, many of those conditions are (quite obviously) sex-specific. There is no coherent medical notion of intersex, it is a vague term (clinical papers don't even refer to XXY as intersex, they are just males, plain and simple). Sax's own article focuses on appropriate definitions of intersex that make sense but there is no consensus (otherwise he wouldn't have needed to propose new definitions). It just isn't a clinical term anymore. The article Maneesh (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
An observation: the community context is more complex when it comes to specific conditions because community organizations that are not specific to a single condition are generally open to people who share common experiences of medicine, and don't turn away individuals because their currently known diagnosis differs. That common ground is also reflected in post-DSD definitions of intersex. Community orgs still use Blackless because of an absence of alternatives that meet their needs, typically acknowledging flaws in the data.
This idea that there is no "coherent medical notion of intersex" is not particularly useful. Firstly, medicine changed their nomenclature to DSD, after Sax wrote his paper. Sax is a pop psychologist, not a part of that process within medicine, and not a biologist with a PhD in developmental genetics. Sax's own paper was not coherent when his definition of intersex is actually two different definitions. Secondly, books have been written about intersex as a contested concept, but other contested concepts include Women, Disability, Black people, and also concepts of disorder, medical necessity, and normal. Continually referring on this page to intersex as a vague concept, as you do, is WP:UNDUE and likely to be a form of motivated reasoning. Trankuility (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
It is quite useful to know there is no consensus on the meaning of intersex, since that help interpret various RS. Your claim about Sax, an MD whose peer reviewed paper is a RS, as not "part of that process within medicine" is extremely dubious.Maneesh (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
And I have no idea what you mean by "Continually referring on this page to intersex as a vague concept, as you do, is WP:UNDUE and likely to be a form of motivated reasoning.". This very article says so rather clearly "Estimates of the number of people who are intersex vary, depending on which conditions are counted as intersex." Maneesh (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The statement that "there is no consensus on the meaning of intersex" is wrong and a motivated interpretation of my words. There is community consensus on the UN definition. Sax was very clearly not a signatory to the 2006 medical consensus on DSD. Authors of that paper are documented. There is even a list floating around the internet of participants of the workshop that led to it.
  • Hughes, Iuean; Lee, Peter (2005). "Intersex Consensus Meeting'" (PDF).
Trankuility (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I've lost what your point is. Sax *supports* the idea that XYY and XXX are *not* intersex. He also supports the idea that (quite plainly) LOCAH, hypospadiasis, XXY etc. etc. are also not sensibly intersex. The fact prominent intersex advocacy organizations like the UN suggest the prevalence varies over *two orders of magnitude*, the upper bound being Fausto-Sterling and the lower bound being close to Sax, makes it rather clear that there is no consensus. Not interested in discussing what my "motivations" are with you, all I've provided you with are some rather plain facts. I am lost as to what you are trying to show with a 2005 meeting agenda intersex conditions? That is not even a RS, let alone some sort of demonstration that a consensus definition exist. Both of Sax and intersex advocacy organization seem to clearly agree that there is no clear definition of intersex. Maneesh (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Alice Dreger is a well known intersex activist and a founder of ISNA. She, unsurprisingly, says "The challenging thing about talking about the history and politics of the term “intersex” is that the term is a moving target. That is to say it’s meaning seems to change even as we talk about it....A new system based on the central term “intersex” was never going to fly. By then, not only could the docs not agree on what it meant clinically, not only was the term heavily politicized, the term had started to be used by people who were transgendered but who weren’t intersex in any of the conventional ways...Because as a political term, “intersex” makes perfect sense to me. That’s why I do and will continue to use the term “intersex” when I’m talking about the politics of intersex.". None of that quote is news to anyone who has been paying attention to these matters; intersex is difficult to define because it is vague and no longer a clinical-grade term. Maneesh (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Crossroads, some kinds of hypospadias are named in Global Disorders of Sex Development Update since 2006: Perceptions, Approach and Care (2016). Trankuility (talk) 05:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

5-ARD is a condition that specifically affects males.

Two reverts on this elementary fact. "Male infants with 5-alpha-reductase deficiency are born with sexual ambiguity.","Males with congenital 5 AR deficiency have underdeveloped external genitalia and prostate." Look on the 5α-Reductase deficiency page for the 3rd ref: "Andrology: Male Reproductive Health and Dysfunction". This page, more than just about any other, needs to be clear on these sorts of facts when referring to males and females. Females can have have 5-ARD, but obviously does not affect genital development. The threats to report fixing basic facts like this on this page as "edit warring" is quite rich. Maneesh (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with you on that. https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/5-alpha-reductase-deficiency/CycoMa (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The specific case that the editor is referring to, and where recent edits have reduced information on those affected by the case, is based on this article:
  • Fénichel, Patrick; Paris, Françoise; Philibert, Pascal; Hiéronimus, Sylvie; Gaspari, Laura; Kurzenne, Jean-Yves; Chevallier, Patrick; Bermon, Stéphane; Chevalier, Nicolas; Sultan, Charles (2013). "Molecular Diagnosis of 5α-Reductase Deficiency in 4 Elite Young Female Athletes Through Hormonal Screening for Hyperandrogenism". The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. 98 (6): –1055-E1059. doi:10.1210/jc.2012-3893. ISSN 0021-972X.
See also:
Trankuility (talk) 04:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Those papers have sloppy titles. You can see that thought the title is "Molecular Diagnosis of 5α-Reductase Deficiency in 4 Elite Young Female Athletes Through Hormonal Screening for Hyperandrogenism", the underlying paper is on a method for detecting the "undiagnosed XY DSD" with regard to determining eligibility to compete. The paper is really using "female" to mean "thought to be female". All of the participants had XY genotypes and male levels of testosterone. Only two of the four (EDIT: actually all four, but different mutations) participants had 5-ARD. You can't refer to a "5-ARD female" in an encyclopedic article on the subject just because a paper used it in a title this sort of way. Especially when the paper is on a screening method to be applied to prevent males from competing against females. 05:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Maneesh, the issue of women's athletics is much more cinllez than is dreamt of in your philisophy; by replacing "female" with "thought to be female" you and stating the goal of the method as "preventing males from competing against females" you are defying both the plain sense of the paper and the evident fact that the terms "male" and "female" in English refer at times to a chromosomal status, at other times to anatomical or hormonal characteristics, but much of the time to gender identities and social roles. Your shoehorn is doing more work here than it is designed for. Newimpartial (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
You continue to be confused about basic aspects of biology. The paper has a very clear interpretation and there is no defying the plain sense of the paper. This is a page on intersex conditions, only males have 5-ARD as an intersex condition; the article cannot refer "5-ARD females" in this context regardless of the title of that particular paper. This is very simple and straightforward. Maneesh (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
"Female athletes" is not necessarily cognate to "females" in English, at least what you mean by "females". The is very simple and straightforward, and you are the one defying the plain sense of the English language. Newimpartial (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I am disturbed by editors editing this page who only have an interest in shoring up a particular idea of what is female or male, irrespective of other ideas - including in medicine and law. An editor who only edits this page to make its concepts seem as vague and contested as possible, and ideas about sex as narrow and uncontested as possible, really don't belong on this page, or on this site. Trankuility (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
There are two sex categories: male and female. Almost all intersex people belong to either of those categories, a very small percentage don't clearly belong to either. Citations on this very page will explain that to you, nothing complicated about it and that general perspective that is fundamental to biology, evolution and medicine absolutely must be represented here and on this site and absolutely belongs here. "Sex is an important biological variable that must be considered in the design and analysis of human and animal research. The terms sex and gender should not be used interchangeably. Sex is dichotomous, with sex determination in the fertilized zygote stemming from unequal expression of sex chromosomal genes."

Yes, I am quite familiar with the recent paper you are using as a Shibolleth in defense of dichotomous sex. However, "Sex" is not only a biological concept; for example, it is also a legal concept, and in that sense is not necessarily dichotomous. Newimpartial (talk) 02:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Why not point to these reliable sources that define sex as a continuous (multi-dimensional?) variable or multiple categories etc. what does any of that have to do with this article that is about a group of uncommon congenital variations of sex-associated characteristics?Maneesh (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
This is a ridiculous argument. If all you are interested in is what sexes people with intersex conditions have (and their population figures only as a by-product of a related ideological position) then you have a very narrow focus on this page and intersex in general, and should reconsider your interest in editing on the subject. Trankuility (talk) 07:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
No need to worry about what interests I consider, I consider them just fine.Maneesh (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Please see WP:NPA. This speculation about other editors' supposed motives or ideology is highly inappropriate, just as if it was being done to you. I see nothing but good faith concerns here. Crossroads -talk- 05:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I made this edit: [1] We need to not be sloppy and to avoid using WP:UNDUE terms. The BMJ paper uses the term "women" anyway; so we WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Crossroads -talk- 05:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
There is something just not good around that entire paragraph. Several authors are mentioned by name including Katrina Karkazis and Rebecca Jordan-Young. The next paragraph neglects to mention that they are authors of the piece discussed there and makes it seem like the BMJ is being editorially attributed. This probably needs to be compacted and then some sources that contrast (like the IAAF policies) with Karkazis and Jordan-Young to maintain WP:NPOV, which should be easy enough given that it is well known that these types of policies are WP:CONTROVERSIAL. Maneesh (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Population Figures section should also move up so that conditions are int←roduced, making it easier to discuss specific cases/instances. Section should also be named something more sensible like 'Prevalence'. Maneesh (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree that something is off about that paragraph and that it should be checked for NPOV. Moving the section seems sensible as well. Crossroads -talk- 05:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I found a source that may be helpful for the history section

I found this source right here.

I even found a free version of it right here.

This source mainly talks about the medical history of it. CycoMa (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah by the way you can’t cite the free version. Because Wikipedia wouldn’t let it be cited.
if you want to cite the source you will have to cite the non-free version. CycoMa (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Here’s a source that may be helpful for 16th century. Book here.CycoMa (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intersex/Archive_13&oldid=1029298529"