Talk:Intersex/Archive 4

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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

History?

I'd just like to offer a suggestion that I believe might perhaps improve the article. Presently, it focuses primarily on sociological aspects, nomenclature and activism, and is geared towards a reader who is already familiar with the topic.

Perhaps it might benefit from a more detailed glance at the History and Anthropology of the concept of intersexuality, as well as at some other basic aspects that would clarify the topic for the layperson. Mip | Talk 19:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Signs: suggestions

I would like to suggest several changes in the "signs" chapter. I would like to emphasize the importance of signs, being "problems" that first give the hint of a possible intersex (DSD) patient in specific ages of life:

Ambiguous genitalia (often newborns), marked by

-Clitoral hypertrophy

-Severe hypospadia

-Labial fusion, pigmentation, or scrotal underdevelopment (hypoplasia)

Pubertas Tarda (delayed puberty; obviously teenagers, early adolescents), marked by

-Amennorrhea or

-Secondary sexual development (lack of breast development, body (hair) development)

Infertility (sometimes only sign/symptome in adults)

-Amennorrhea

-Azoospermia (eg. in XXY Klinefelter syndrome, or 46XY PAIS patients) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chbse (talk • contribs) 15:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This looks like it would be a good, and welcome change. Currently, it focuses primarily on these sings or those signs, while it would be better to focus on groups, such as by chronology of most likely determination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puellanivis (talk • contribs) 00:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

we can try to arrange the chapter in subchapters: signs in chronology (what signs at what "age"), epidemiology and signs (most prevalent signs: ambig/amenorrhea), and adding medical signs in diagnostic proces (ultrasound analysis, diagnostic lapascopy, hormonal evaluation, karyotyping, gonadal biopsy etc). We can go in any direction, but we should consider POV: is this a medical article? How "far" can we go on diagnostics? Chbse 09:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chbse (talk • contribs)

I've been working on improvement/supplements to the signs section: Signs in chronology:

Before birth (prenatal)

Phenotypical female/male ultrasound appearance mismatching predetermined karyotype, eg. 46,XY 46,XX in amniocentesis

Cloacal extrophy seen on ultrasound, seen as severe underdevelopment of the rectum.

After birth (postnatal)

Ambiguous genitalia, marked by clitoral enlargement (hypertrophy), severe hypospadia (abnormally placed urinary exit site), labial fusion (fusing of vaginal labia), pigmentation (darkening of labia/scrotum), or scrotal underdevelopment (hypoplasia).

Cryptorchism (undescended testis)

Around puberty

Delayed puberty (pubertas tarda); marked by either 1. absence of menstrual period (primairy Amenorrhoea) or 2. absence of, or delayed secondary sexual development (no breast development, no body hair etc).

Adulthood

Infertility, sometimes as only sign found in males (azoospermia) and females (amenorrhoea or anovulation)

What do you think? Chbse 08:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Genitalia being ambiguous after birth is quite common, and definitely not exclusive to this specific differentiation from the usual genome.

Additionally the onset of puberty has such a great variance that it's not useful for the same reason. (Same with the menarche)

In the end, don't put down new information without proper citation either. There are plenty of articles concerning this topic on for instance PubMed.

Nerusai (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're quite missing my point (and I feel quite insulted by your comment). I suggest a systematic review on signs and symptoms of intersexuality (DSD; todays appearance of the intersexuality article is messy an non-structural. Ambiguous genitalia are an important symptom that definitely warrants further investigation. The fact that the appearance of ambiguous genitalia is 'quite common' doesn't change the fact that it is a realistic symptom of DSD. Chbse 10:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chbse (talk • contribs)

Less Usual Chromosomal Sex

In addition to the most common XX and XY chromosomal sexes, there are quite a few other possible combinations such as Turner syndrome (XO), Triple X syndrome (XXX), Klinefelter syndrome (XXY), XYY syndrome (XYY), XX male, Swyer syndrome (XY female), and there are many other individuals who do not follow the typical patterns (such as individuals with four or even more sex chromosomes).

Do Swyer Syndrome & XX male belong here? They have a set of 46 chromosomes which are normal, except for defects in the genes. Should it not fall under some new category such as sex reversal? --86.147.1.63 (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Since Swyer Snydrome is most typically a mutation of the SRY gene, then I certainly think it should be there. Of course, that all depends on what one means by "chromosomal", if you mean at the chromosome level, then Swyer shouldn't be included because it's not a "chromosomal" sex, however if you mean "genetic" sex, then Swyer would be noted, as it's most typically a mutation in the SRY gene, which determines the sex of the child. Without that gene in the typical configuration, then the person grows up neutral, which is by default in our biology feminine. However, CAIS would not, as the "genetic" sex of the individual is still XY, with gonadal development, rather it's a "congenital" sex, where the body has failed to develop entirely in the direction determined by the "genetic" sex. (Although it could be seen as a "genetic" gender as well, except the mutation is in a somatic gene, rather than a sex gene.) All that taken care of, if the factors introducing an intersex condition do not arrise until after birth, then it's not "congenital" sex, but rather "biological" sex.

e.g. Dave Reimar was chromosomally male, genetically male, congenitally male, but due to an accident they attempted to raise him socially female, believing that social sex was malable, and did not depend upon biology significantly. The results of this situation indicate that they were unfortunately quite wrong. There is a "social" sex that we're born with, and to try and change it would require brain surgery that does not exist. Point out all these ways, any of them can go "wrong", and modern medicine documents a number of divergences that show that each part of the sexes named above can end up in conflict with one or more of the others. ... *sigh* I answered with an essay again... sorry. "yes" --Puellanivis (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Case studies are hardly convincing evidence, not to mention that the male and female 'social identities' are tautologies. In this particular case you could also argue that the 'experimenters' unwittingly influenced the outcome (as can be countered by using double-blind experimentation). Also, social information clearly is conveyed through the environment, and is by its very definition NOT genetic (As evidented by the great discrepancies in gender roles between various cultures).

Nerusai (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The term you're looking for is "gender identity". Jacie Cady (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Stupid Question

Like the title says its a stupid qeustion but I am right in believing that intersexual people are infertile. sorry, I just wondered if their was a possiblity of being born fertile in maybe one of the sexual forms.71.176.163.126 (talk) 09:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Intersex patients are generally infertile. However, some forms of chromosomal DSD (mosaic Turner syndrome: 45X,46XY or 45X,46XX) can have spontaneous puberty/menarche as well as spontaneous ovulation -> there is a chance of pregnancy. There have been reports of patients with 5-alpha reductase deficiency type 2 (5ARD2) that have children; biologically fathering patients via InVitroFertilization. Intersex and fertility: Never say never. Greetings Chbse 14:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chbse (talk • contribs)

I have an even more stupid question: is it theoretically possible for an individual with any of the intersex conditions to be both a father and a mother? The article is somewhat ambiguous about "ambiguous genitalia". 70.20.149.174 (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"father" and "mother" do not have to be related to respectively "male" and "female" (biological descriptions). Mother/father are social terms given to individuals based on social roles in the (traditional) household and do not have to be (cor)related to gender behaviour (male or female set of behavioural aspects). To answer your specific question: It's possible, but not likely that an intersex individual would consider his/himself to be a "father" or "mother". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chbse (talk • contribs) 19:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, my apologies regarding the terminology. I am only interested in the biological aspect: can a single individual theoretically produce both sperm and ova (eggs). (P.S. I am afraid I do not agree with you regarding the meaning of "father" and "mother". A "deadbeat dad" is legally the biological "father" of a child, regardless of his social behavior towards the child). 70.20.149.174 (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the meaning of father/mother: I'm from the Netherlands where, socially, a female can be as a father to a child (in lesbian couples), which is why I stated that behaviour components of social interaction play a bigger part in the concept of parental support, which has nothing to do with legalities in this case.

Of course this is possible, in the end conception is nothing more than a shuffling of genetic information. Various work has been done by removing the nucleus of a cell, and replacing it with that of another (cloning); it's possible to do this with cells from the same individual.

Sperm and eggs are nothing more then mitosis 'gone wrong', if you open a biology book you can find this explained in greater detail. Every cell has two pairs of all chromosomes (humans have 23 pairs), which we generally refer to as 2n. Sperm and egg cells only have n chromosomes (one of each). Genetically speaking this is the only part applicable to your question (there are slight differences between the creation of male and female gametes (the egg and sperm cells), eggs receive cytoplasm from three other cells I believe. Both n cells then meet to create another 2n cells (the fertilized egg). But really, it's easier if you just read up on meiosis and mitosis in your biology book! It's a fun read too! (From your question I deduct that you seem to think they are two wholly different entities, while they're really pretty much the same).

Nerusai (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the main question: no human can produce ovum AND sperm cells at the same time to my knowledge. This would be like procreation of snails (unisexual reproduction? I forgot the correct term for it). Gonadal development is different in (normal) males and females. In intersexuality (or DSD, newer terminology), congenital/chromosomal defects (in my example: gonadal dysgenesis) in gonadal development will often have devastating effects on gonadal development: development of streak gonads or ovotestis development (often symetrical). Technically, there is a chance that these "patients" can produce offspring; which is seen in mosaic Turner syndrome (extremely rare, but technically possible due to "just enough" gonadal development). Chances of reproductive material (ovum/sperm cells) of both sex at the same time, in viable conditions, is practically zero. Fertility in intersex patients is often contributed to "just enough gonadal development" to one side: male or female. When gonadal development is somewhere in between the spectrum of male-to-female/female-to-male development (eg. ovotestis, or streak gonads to some extend), gonadal differentiation is so poor that no reproductive material can be formed. Chbse 16:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the very thorough answer, Chbse. :) 70.20.149.174 (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I know of one case where self-fertilisation happened, but the foetus was calcified and encysted as the conditions were not even remotely viable. No womb, cervix, or vagina. Zoe Brain (talk) 02:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds more like an excellent example of a teratoma, than a case of self-fertilisation. I'll look into this. Greetz Chbse 09:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chbse (talk • contribs)

PS: I have not been able to find any article suggesting self-fertilization or 'autogamy' occuring in humans. If anyone does have articles, please email me: chbse@chbse.nl Chbse 19:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chbse (talk • contribs)

Claus Groot

"This is also known among the latest researchers as the Claus-Groot syndrome named after the famous homosexual Dutch researcher." There is no famous Dutch researcher Claus Groot. Vandalism?87.213.128.100 (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The hyphen implies it's named after both Claus and Groot. I can't find enough evidence to suggest whether or not this is true (there are surely many Dutch people with both these names). Dcoetzee 00:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm there with you. I don't know any Dutch researchers Claus and Groot, and I briefly was a Dutch researcher into intersexuality/DSD. Someone edited a reference to the rumour of Claus-Groot but the referred article does not exist. We'll just have to keep deleting the changes of the "anonymous" "88.209.76.236" until he has something real to say in this discussion. Greetz. Chbse 13:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chbse (talk • contribs)

PS: no known articles in UpToDate-online 2008 of searchitems Claus or Groot. No known items in Harrison's principles of internal medicine (Braunwald). No known MeSH terms in Pupmed.com, no results on claus-groot syndrome. Google:

"The Claus Groot Syndrome is a mental disease, in which you are so impressed by your partner his or her sexual performance, that you are unable to leave your partner, even if he or she breaks up with you." This doesn't seem intersex to me. One site spoke of Claus-groot syndrome in intersexuality, but it did not fit in the text, which looks to me like someone changed some info as a lark.Chbse 14:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Likely hoax unless solid reliable sources prove otherwise. -- Banjeboi 21:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is this categorized as a gender identity?

While some people may use intersex as an identity label, it's primarily a biological sex and a medical condition.

MykellM (talk) 09:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that an identity label could not also be a biological sex? People label themselves as male and female but they can also be biologically male or female.

198.189.14.2 (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I imagine MykellM (hereafter referred to as OP) was stating that whenever used this should be referring to the biological status, since it has no real bearing on the gender identity (gender identity being separate from biological sex is <very> common). Therefore it's useful to make sure they are <only> used to refer to the biological sex.

The funny thing here is that by definition 'medical condition' reflects upon an individual's physical health, and while intersex statuses may have some influence on them, psychological is usually the biggest concern. Perhaps this is why OP is so confusing.

Either way, perhaps it's time new labels are invented that always refer to biological sex and others for gender (psychological sex). It'd be useful to link biological sex directly to genetics, since outward appearances are no guarantee either.

Nerusai (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Because the denial surrounding intersex has led to people's own identities being denied them, and because people affected were seen as few and dispersed, terms did not have the potential to be developed in the way they have for gay and lesbian people. This is one of the reasons people have hung on to the medical vocabulary - because that is often the only discourse available to people; it is within that discourse people come to understand themselves. Ideally there would be another set of terms, but what people have tended to do is claim intersex for themselves. Intersex is itself not a biological sex, although some do choose to see their own intersex as if it were a third sex; neither is it a gender identity, although intersex people may have issues about their assigned gender. MishMich (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Draft changes for lede sentence

MishMich: I'm glad we have good foundation for starting. Sandboxes are typically used for overhauling, and fact-by-fact changes are typically made on talkpages. So, I prefer at least trying to work via the talkpage first, but if you prefer a sandbox, I won't resist it. For example, I don't think the current lede sentence is sufficiently readable for most people, and it's easy to post proposed alternatives here. Is the following sentence an acceptable alternative to the current lede sentence?:

Intersexuality in humans refers to intermediate or atypical combinations of the physical features that otherwise distinguish male from female.

— James Cantor (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

James: I don't like the opening sentence either. Personally, I am happy with this, although perhaps substitute 'usually' for 'otherwise' and leave out 'the'?:

Intersexuality in humans refers to intermediate or atypical combinations of physical features that usually distinguish male from female.

However, then there needs to be some discussion about this being more than somatic appearance alone, and the various markers that have come to be seen to indicate intersex - chromosomes, genetics, in-utero exposure to exogenous hormones, such as progestin and DES and EDCs, as well as unknown causes. It strikes me now that if intersex is described in this way, there will be those who are now included under 'DSD' (I will use 'VSD' from here on) who do not any atypical combination of physical features. So, at the point at which you begin focusing on the physical features alone, you begin to draw a demarcation between 'intersexuality' and 'DSD'. The whole notion of 'intersexuality' itself is questionable - although I am aware that there are individuals who do regard this as appropriate. 'Intersex' is preferable, because it does not have the connotation that 'sexuality' carries over from 'homosexuality', 'heterosexuality', and 'transsexuality'. Intersex is not a sexual orientation (just as many would argue neither is transsexuality). Ideally, the work done on 'intersexuality' would be carried over to a new section entitled 'intersex', and then this could then spur off to 'intersexuality' as an archaic term for 'intersex' as well as a sexual identity claimed by some intersex people. An 'intersex' section could clarify the somatic atypicality inherent in 'intersex', and then point towards a section on 'DSD/VSD' which describes a set of medical conditions based on certain genetic, chromosomal, or physiological traits which may or may not involve intersex features. For example - a mild form of CAH or MAIS is described as DSD/VSD - but may not entail particularly atypical physical features. DSD/VSD gives a precise taxonomy, but not necessarily of intersex - it incorporates the genetic and chromosomal conditions that CAN give rise to intersex, by don't necessarily result in intersex - and it includes physical features such as hypospadias and cryptorchidism that may not have a clear basis in genetics, and that individually were not seen as intersex in their own right, but might have been in combination with (say) infertility. So, a section on 'intersexuality' needs to be about that, not about 'intersex' or 'DSD', and the same is true for a section on 'intersex', which is why 'DSD/VSD' needs to be dealt with in its own section. 'DSD' is not a new taxonomy for intersex, it is a new taxonomy for a set of situations which can give rise to intersex, but may not, as well as set of features which on their own were may not have been regarded as intersex. I am happy with the above definition precisely because it gets away from the genetics etc. which have come to underpin intersex over the past fifty years, and returns to the situation faced by those who do experience sexual intermediacy in their lives - managing non-standard sex-features. This is my personal view - but what is important for me is the realities of somatics, not genetics MishMich (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've made the edit, together with the changes you recommended.

I agree also that the issues you summarize above will require some discussion. Because terminology issues tend to be the source of greatest conflict, I suggest we postpone it until we have some momentum on the other issues. If you still agree about focussing on medical issues, I suggest we next relocate the medical sections (causes, signs, etc.) to immediately follow the lede paragraph. I do not mean this to suggest that the issues discussed in "intersex people in society" are at all less important, but because I think most readers will better understand the social issues after reading about the actual conditions themselves.

— James Cantor (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Interjection: should we group this article to this Congenital_anomalies_of_the_genitalia +template? I think that might be very useful to the draft you are making now. Right now it's in sexuality and gender, not that it can't be in both.kriscrash (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Although intersex and Congenital_anomalies_of_the_genitalia are not synonymous, they certainly seem very relevant to each other to me. Someone reading one would be very likely to want to know about the other, IMO.— James Cantor (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And at that, physical could suggest changes in Secondary_sexual_characteristics were enough, is it? kriscrash (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by that.— James Cantor (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You write as follows; Intersexuality in humans refers to intermediate or atypical combinations of physical features that usually distinguish male from female. when one reads this one may think that physical features such as breasts or hair distribution are part of what makes a person intersexed while I understand intersex to strictly related to gonads and sex organs only. kriscrash (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Intersex is actually a group of conditions that are recognized as a group only informally. There is no strict definition or test, and there are debates over whether one or another condition should count as an intersex condition. So, although I will be the first to admit that the definition I suggested is imperfect, I do not believe there exists a perfect definition. I chose the one I did because it was (to my mind) reasonably accurate, reasonably understandable to the average reader, and reasonably respectful of the disagreements among the various stakeholders. I am more than open to suggestions for still better lede sentences.

— James Cantor (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, whatever definition one comes up with, it will always be inadequate and contested by others. I personally do not acknowledge any language that talks about defects and corrections of defects, nor of disorder - so would be unhappy with an association with Congenital_anomalies_of_the_genitalia as it now stands because of the language that is in there. As for trying to tie down a clear definition of 'intersex', and restrict what it is to what is accepted by (say) physicians or scientists is pointless - this is what 'DSD/VSD' was created for. So, if you want a clear definition of DSD/VSD, then have that done under that title - the information is there, and because it is based on a consensus of those who accept DSD it would be unproblematic. However, seeking to do an exercise which reverse engineers those deifinitions back onto intersex simply will not work - DSD/VSD and 'intersex' are not synonymous. Things included DSD/VSD never were accepted as 'intersex' per se (CAH, mild hypospadias). This is why I find the persistence in prioritising medical discourse in a topic on intersex(uality) problematic - the whole point of people disordering intersex was because of the lack of precision and lack of agreenment over what it was. Now people have 'DSD/VSD', they should leave intersex(uality) alone as an archaic form like hermaphrodite, and for those engaged with its community/identity-based significance like gay/lesbian/dwarfism, etc. In this respect, I think that it is not appropriate to prioritise medical or scientific discourse in any entry that covers intersex(uality). MishMich (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Following our discussion of the phrasing of the lede sentence, an unregistered contributor has altered this in a way that meaning is changed from what was agreed and no longer reads well. I would like to propose that the revision is undone, returned to the agreed insertion. The anonymous contributor has the opportunity to return here and explain their reasoning for the change. MishMich (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The anonymous contributor has made some other alterations, notably deleting the word(s) 'intersex(uality)' in two places. This can probably be let stand in one place, but the alteration of the summary of Milton Diamond's view on 'language' is problematic because it leaves the sentence hanging without a subject for what is 'related (to)'. Rather than reversing the deletion, where the anonymous user deleted the word 'intersexuality' at the end of the sentence I would like to insert an alternative ending to the sentence 'when concerning the issues intersex people have to deal with'. I would like to formally register my concern that this anonymous user appears to be making edits which effectively edit out the human aspects of intersex - and by so-doing dehumanises the topic and the subject of the topic - intersex people. MishMich (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

EL for OII

I believe user:Komododragoon was correct to remove the link. The site does not fit the criteria in WP:EL, in that it does not "contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Rather, the site is an exposition of political views, containing policies about whether and when anyone should receive surgeries for intersex conditions, a petition, "official positions" on health care and terminology, a "statement of dissent" regarding opposing views, etc. The site does not provide (nor appears meant to provide) objective information about the topic at all. The group is entitled to its opinions of course, but including the site as an EL is not encyclopedic.

I recommend that an interested editor select whatever information in that site they believe is useful and to integrate it into this mainpage (together with the RS's that support that information).
— James Cantor (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. That should be applied evenly though to all the ELs not just the one. -- Banjeboi 01:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right; the same criteria should apply to all the EL's given.— James Cantor (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

We appear to have a problem. Three editors (user:Komododragoon, user:Benjiboi, and myself) agree that the link to OII does not meet WP:EL. However, the SPA that created the WP page on that organization and now an anonymous IP editor repeatedly re-add it, without discussion or consensus. I am already at 3 reverts, so I will not re-remove it myself.
— James Cantor (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that OII is the only international intersex organisation that provides an alternative discourse to the contested terminology of intersex 'disorder' in the form of 'DSD', I am surprised that Wikipedia allows this 'political' editing of entries to make it appear that there is no dissent to the terminology in question. Opposition to the use of 'DSD' by those affected by it is no more 'political' than its promotion by those who seek to impose it. Please stop removing these contributions or a complaint about the bias that motivates these deletions will need to be escalated. This form of censorship of dissident voices is intolerable. MishMich (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem whatsoever with noting any disagreement with any term. The problem is that an advocacy site is not, in and of itself, appropriate to include in an encyclopedia as an EL. The content of a reliable source that notes a dispute over terminology may indeed be summarized on the mainpage. Your threats above do not suggest that you will take what I say at face value; therefore, I recommend that you do indeed seek the opinions of other editors from the appropriate forums.

— James Cantor (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like this is another case of James Cantor wanting to over-represent the academic sexologist POV and suppress the dissenting points of view. I've reviewed WP:EL, and it seems to suggest that a certain balance in representation of different POVs in ELs is a good thing. And it's unclear why he asserts "contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources;" can't a site combine information and knowledge with policial activism? A page on this site should also be cited where the article says "Others prefer a less loaded term." Dicklyon (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "over-representing the academic sexologist POV." Academic sexologists publish their findings and ideas in RS's, and RS's are the preferred source of WP content. If Dicklyon has an issue with one of the pillars of WP, he should take that issue up in an appropriate forum, not on whatever talkpage on which he wants to make yet another personal attack against me. (Incidentally, Dicklyon's content-devoid comment is perilous close to wiki-stalking, subsequent to the RfC I initiated against his already long-term, inappropriate user conduct.)

It is silly, if not outright tendentious, for Dicklyon to intepret my words that "dispute over terminology may indeed be summarized on the mainpage" to mean that I think such material should not be included. Finally, of course it is possible for an EL to contain both information and political activism. The proper thing to do in such cases (as I said) is to summarize that information on the mainpage here and to include the supporting sources.

— James Cantor (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think as strong a case could be made from preventing sexologists (etc.) from using Wikipedia to promulgate their professional agendas as any that could be made about excluding intersex people themselves from commenting on their own issues - and making this out to be 'political'. Perhaps a separate set of pages should be established to cover intersex community, identity and activism, which would incorporate discussion about dissent that can be linked to? This page could be managed by intersex people themselves to the exclusion of those who would speak about their issues on their behalf while denying them any input? This way it would reflect the 'political' manner in which most intersex people have been excluded from a retrograde discussion which recategorises them as 'disordered'. MishMich (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

MishMich: Your comment above suggests that you are not yet entirely familiar with how Wikipedia works. That's no crime, of course, and I was in that same position not long ago myself. You will find yourself a much more effective (and happy) contributor to WP after you finish reading the basic rules. I keep on my own user page a list of the policies that I have found useful.

For the record, I am actually very supportive of intersex issues and am happy to help supply whatever I can to help WP provide the best information available to its readers. Also for the record, I have no personal opinion regarding DSD or intersex as terminology, and I have no objection to indicating both on the mainpage here. My edit should be taken simply at face value: There is a standard on WP for which links should be included. My removal of the OII link does not reflect opposition to the term. (In fact, I had no idea that removing the link would/could be interpreted as a statement on my part about any specific content issue.)

Although I am the only self-acknowledged professional scientist writing here, you will notice that I am not alone in my opinions. Although I can always appreciate people's skepticism (given the histories), no one is going to get anywhere when everyone is viewed as my-side or that-side. There will be issues we agree on and issues that we disagree on. Presuming my opinions on the basis of my group membership is the very prejudice that we all need to avoid.

— James Cantor (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment. FWIW, I have little clue who is what and not that I don't care but ... I don't care. I don't agree that the link should be removed - yet. Only because I haven't really had a chance to page through it. When I first re-added I felt it was fine and depending on what resources are there it may indeed meet our EL policies. Regradless let's avoid using this as a touch-off point for larger issues that really won't get solved with animosity. MishMich, I think there is compelling reasons to look at a Intersex working group as a subset of the LGBT project but we would need to show a sustainable interest to warrant its inception and energies. -- Banjeboi 15:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

@Banjiboi: Perfectly fair. I would indeed encourage you to read through that site. It consists of (essentially) five pages of its political views and one page of "misconceptions." Some of the statements on that page are entirely correct (IMO), and others less so, but no statement contains any reference to an RS nor was written by a topic expert. (The remaining pages on the site are a welcome page, etc.)

— James Cantor (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

@Banjiboi: Placing an item under LGBT for intersex would present its own peculiar problems, because while some intersex people do identify as LGB or T, many do not and do not see the reason why it is included within LGBT by some. I am personally ambivalent on the matter. I do think that an intersex working group would be a way forward, provided it did include the diversity of views (unlike, say, Bailey's Sexnet which tended exclude people with a different perspective to the ideological positions of some early members - or the consensus on DSD which only included two token intersex people and reached a conclusion not supported by many intersex people themselves). If an LGBT entry is to be considered, I am happy to help with that, as long as it is clear that such inclusion is itself controversial. I do liaise with Anglican LGBT groups in this way in the UK. Perhaps one way forward in the intersex page would be to develop a clear statement about the controversy surrounding the new terminology, why it is contested, and clarifying that for some people 'intersex' has a scientific meaning, while for others it has taken on a meaning that relates to community and identity as well as physiology, this way the positions and players in the controversy could be dealt with in their socio-historic context.MishMich (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

@James: I think your comment about being the only professional scientist is significant - I do have both humanities and science degrees, although my research is social science. Unfortunately, there is a dimension to lived intersex experience that goes beyond science, and perhaps this is why you read people's response to their experiences as objects of scientific enquiry as 'political', because science is not good at reflecting on itself in the way social science and cultural studies can be. I have no issues with your dissemination of information about the science underlying intersex (provided it is correct), but I will take issue if you seek to censor input as if intersex is only a medical-scientific issue. There are cultural, social, ideological and identity issues involved with intersex, and to omit these from discourse simply because they are not subject to the rigours of scientific understanding is itself a problematic political position. It removes certain dimensions of intersex issues from debate, and reduces intersex to a scientific phenomenon. It is more than this, it is an experience people live through, and often it is an uncomfortable experience; it is usually accompanied by denial on the part of family and the medical profession, and this can leave people in a situation where they seek to grasp an identity they do not know even exists. This aspect of intersex has been dealt with in academic literature - although tends not to be represented in the scientific literature; people like Lih Mei and Sarah Creighton at UCL in the UK, Del leGrace Volcano, Katrina Roen, Sharon Preves, and more recently others have begun to address this. I have no objection to the use of 'DSD' in a page on Wikipedia, although I personally do not support it, because what has happened is a fact - it is an episode in the social history of intersex. However, I do object when references to any opposition to 'DSD' are excised, because that presents a view that it is uncontested; the opposition is as much a 'fact' as the insertion of 'DSD' into the discourse is. There are academic references that could drawn to highlight this (and I guess I need to find the time to go through my bibliography to attend to this) - however, when I made my original postings some 2-3 years ago, there was no academic reference. This is not unusual when debate happens outside academia. On the subject of OII's website, there are academic and other contributions on there, including some by Professor Diamond and I have contributed articles myself. Whilst I am aware that there are some political as well as satirical writings on there, I do not see why it would be an issue to link to a site that is established specifically for support and information when there are other sites similarly linked to in the same section - ISNA has a link, which has now been defunct for two years, yet was the same sort of organisation, as there are other support groups. Having a link to an international, multi-lingual, support group for intersex people is entirely appropriate for a page devoted to intersex - because intersex is more than just science. I am not really interested in the science of intersex, personally; I am interested in the experience and understanding of intersex people - for me that is more important than the science. To restrict discourse to that favoured by one particular discipline simply because that is seen as 'scientific' is contentious when applied to a topic that is intersectional in nature and which lends itself to a multi-disciplinary approach. Furthermore, to seek to imprint upon the discourse a specifically North American perspective is not acceptable when intersex is a cross-cultural phenomenon. As a social scientist influenced by phenomenology living in a different country I simply take a different view on these issues to you, and in discussions with intersex people I know, I see a different set of understandings from yours. These are no less relevant than yours simply because they happen to be the perspectives of people affected by intersex. You may see this as political - but actually it is not.

MishMich (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking back I see that 'Komododragon' made the edit that precipitated this. He should not be allowed to vanadalise these pages, as he is not a registered Wiki contributor, and has conducted a campaign against OII ever since he had to be evicted from the OII forums because of his persistent incitement of hatred against transsexuals. This continued on his personal blog, and the offending pages were eventually removed when the nature of the content was brought to the attention of the hosting company. I am surprised to see his activities here condoned by a reputable academic. MishMich (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

MishMich: Your comments are lucid and thoughtful, and I believe sincerely that you and I can improve many aspects of this page. But, I also think you are being unfair to me in attributing some dark significance to my saying I was the only professional scientist here. I actually said I was the only self-acknowledged professional scientist here: In a forum of mostly anonymous editors, there is no way for me to know anything about other people's real world identities, and when you first posted here, you had no user page. It's rather unfair to fault me for not noticing that you had created one nearly simultaneously with when I was typing my comment. On WP, we do our best to assume good faith; there is no benefit to assuming a dark purpose to what clearly has a much more benign explanation.

Regarding the remainder of your comment: I agree with you. Nowhere did I say that intersex “is only a medical-scientific issue.” Nowhere did I object to “intersex” terminology (or DSD terminology, for that matter). Nor do I at all object to “Having a link to an international, multi-lingual, support group for intersex people.”

I more than appreciate that very many intersex folks have been very poorly treated by very many professions. I appreciate also that my belonging to one of those professions makes it is easy to see me as somehow representing them personally. To the extent that it is meaningful, I sincerely apologize. However, progress will be made only when people are treated as individual people instead of as members or representatives of a group. You and I each bring to the table both the benefits and the baggage of all our prior experiences.

Let me suggest this for making the intersex page the best page it can be. Let’s start with the medical information, because it has the fewest political overtones. Pick whatever medical information you want from the OII site, post it here with the original references for it, and together we can summarize it and de-technicalize it to make as useful as possible for WP readers. After we spend some time together working on such material, it is my sincere hope that we can develop a productive level of trust and respect.
— James Cantor (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

@James. Sounds like a plan, thank you. I too would like to see this page be the best it can be, and clearly it has to be constructed in line with all interested parties. The only alternative to that would be to have separate pages, one for 'DSD' and one for 'intersex' - reflecting medical/scientific and socio-cultural aspects accordingly. It would be better to maintain this in one place, but with a clearly referenced section which deals with social history, politics, media and experience. I apologise if my reading of your motives came across offensively, and yes, it was your comment about professionality that led me to insert my profile (when I was last here three years ago I was unaware that the profile could be added). I would like to make a suggestion, that we leave the page as it stands at the moment, create a sandbox instance of the page, and insert proposed changes in the sandbox first so that people can add/question/amend as appropriate, and if a change on an item is requested, it be made to the original poster where they are registered, and that poster is the one who (if they agree) makes the change. If references are inserted which strengthen the veracity of a statement, these will be seen as unproblematic. I will get on to people at OII and make your suggestion.

MishMich (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea but you might find it somewhat impractical. I would suggest overhauling section by section until you find a source of disagreement and then work that out. Meanwhile everyone else will just edit the article as they see fit. -- Banjeboi 02:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I am making it clear that I am now a board member of OII(UK), I recently submitted my PhD Thesis on the medical experiences of intersex and transsexual people, and I have spoken at several academic conferences and meetings, some medical, in the UK, France and Belgium. I stated my interest recently on the relevant (OII) page and on my user page, and have not edited the OII page since I was invited to become a board member. I came to this page because I was made aware of edits being made to this page intended to erase references to OII and information that did not accord with the medical POV. OII does have pages dealing with medical issues, as well as community issues, and sections carry papers and articles by those willing to contribute them, including experts, activists and academics such as myself. Unfortunately, they are not easy to find, even for me - that is because OII has expanded rapidly over the past five years and it needs a new website, but the organisational structure makes that difficult. People are looking at relocating the English material into a new site using a content management system. Some of the material is copyright to OII, some to the authors, and more recently publication using a creative commons license. My interest in this page is in ensuring that it is a good page and that there is a balance to the prevailing POV which tends to rely on experts and exclude intersex people and their POV (photographs such as the one I highlighted will actually put some intersex people off this page); also, to present the social issues and debates as fairly as possible, and to have the page be a useful information point for people coming to Wikipedia to find out about intersex. As a board member, obviously I feel it is as important for OII to be included among the organisations listed: it is represented on every continent, in 17 countries, 6 English-speaking countries, with 50 board members around the world, is the only international organisation of its type, and is in some countries the only intersex support organisation there is; it has also been featured several times in the media, books, articles, papers and theses. It is voluntary and it is not-funded. Apart from Canada it is of limited significance in North America, where condition-specific support groups are adequate. I am aware that there are conflicts between some members of OII and the associates of at least one other editor of this page - but I am willing to work towards getting this page right, although from an academic perspective I do believe that the medical aspects need to be addressed in their social and historical context, and that the best way to have this page improve is to work together on this. OII allows for this because it is part of the ethos of the organisation that people are free to think for themselves and not be subordinated to the structure of the organisation or any ideology - however, we do not allow any form of bigotry, policing of other people's expressions of gender or sexuality, or assertions of ideological normativities. I hold no political ideology. Mish (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)