Talk:Intersex/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Comments

Debates from 2004 removed to Talk:Intersexual/Archive 2004 -- AlexR 10:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, look I am an intersexed-female and I appreciate all the information about the issue but unless you are intersexed you have no idea of what it is like other than what you read. It is ridiculous to believe only men and women exist, there are more than 2 sexes and that is a fact. My driver's license has an X under where it says "sex" so that should tell you something right there. Society doesn't understand this to its fullest extent yet but I hope that someday they will. I know many intersexed people and none of us can get ourselves pregnant, that is the more ignorant thing I ever heard in regards to this issue. Even if such things were possible there is absolutely no way the offspring would develop normally...it doesn't happen! Otherwise bravo to those who stick with the facts about this and keep an open-mind enough to accept us for who we are not what we are. Your kindness is appreciated! User:134.129.154.67

Actually, depending on the condition, intersex females can get pregnant, people with AGS for example, just as some intersex males can father children. (Those kids do turn out normal, as well, at least all I heard of.) However, I agree, the mayority (in terms of medical conditions) of intersex people can not get pregnant or father children. Oh, and input into the articles is always appreciated. -- AlexR 07:42, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

("ags" is an old abbreviation for "adrenogenital syndrome", which has been superceded by congenital adrenal hyperplasia)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cherylchase (talk • contribs) .

I think the original commenter was referring to self-impregnation, which can be possible in hermaphroditic animals but is a myth in regards to intersexed humans. -Emiellaiendiay 23:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"Elevating the sex chromosomes above all other factors may be the 21st century parallel of the mistake made by the Victorians who located "true" sex in the gonads." The word 'Victorian' is charged and has negative connotations, especially when used in a sexual context (e.g. repressed, reactionary, backwards, wrong, etc). The word 'mistake' isn't so hot, either. I'm changing it to read "The common habit in the 21st century of elevating the role of the sex chromosomes above all other factors when determining gender may be analogous to the older habit of finding "true" sex in the gonads." --63.167.237.65 20:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why bother to change one erroneous statement for another? No medical authority of the late 20th or 21st century "elevates sex chromosomes above all other factors" in the context of "determining gender" in intersex conditions. Why would you even want to claim such an absurdity? alteripse 03:25, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we should just scratch the whole paragraph. "Though high school biology teaches that men have XY and women XX chromosomes, in fact there are quite a few other possible combinations such as XO, XXX, XXY, XYY, XO/XY, XX male, XY female, and there are many individuals who do not follow the typical patterns (such as cases with four or even more sex chromosomes)."... My HighSchool Teachers/Books taught XY & XX, but the next page went through the possibility for mutations. If it(XXX,XXY,etc) is skipped it's most likely to avoid confusion and not promote solid genders. I'm having a hard time accepting that paragraph, it sounds like a hit against the scientific community for no reason. If your talking about the general public and not the scientists who follow the XY/XX generality, thats a different ballpark. A group of itelligent people and a group of idiots come to a simmilar conclusion; thus the general public are idiots and we should ignore their opinions.

Popular usage vs correct phrase

The original sentence was exactly the same as the one below, I only added the last six words, in order to clarify a point. "Some have attacked the common Western practice of performing corrective surgery on the genitals of intersexuals as a Western cultural equivalent of female genital mutilation, more properly termed female genital cutting."

The main reason being that FGM is just not a correct term to use, but I do not think that it should be removed. The reason I kept it is because FGC is normally called FGM in Western media, and that is how a number of people would recognize it. PLEASE, don't start a debate about this one word here. There are very well documented and extensive arguments about this in a number of articles already. Keeping the note about female genital cutting being the proper term is not hurting anything, and I believe that it would be helpful to someone who knew nothing about the subject. Sparkleiya 10:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverted - whether a term is "more proper" than another very quickly becomes POV. So you can give an alternative term, but kindly done come up with that "more proper" stuff until you have really good souces for it. -- AlexR 16:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

And you think that declaring another culture's practices "mutilation" is NPOV? The first thing is that, as you might have noticed, female genital mutilation redirects to female genital cutting. However, seeing as most people don't click on every single link in the article to find out what they redirect to, it would be nice to include this tidbit of information. The reasoning is that information like this is *not* picked up in everyday interactions (such as reading the news, etc), or else debates like this wouldn't be happening in the first place.

This is discussed more extensively in the talk page on female genital cutting, done quite well in the section "Why 'Female Circumcision' Is A Questionable Title" but I will summarize. This is a passage from the UNFPA (seeing as you requested a source), which I lifted from the talk page on FGC.

Female genital cutting:

Recently, some organizations have opted to use the more neutral term ‘Female Genital Cutting’. This stems from the fact that communities that practice FGC often find the use of the term ‘mutilation’ demeaning since it seems to indicate malice on the part of parents or circumcisers. The use of judgmental terminology bears the risk of creating a backlash, thus possibly causing an alienation of communities that practice FGC or even causing an actual increase in the number of girls being subjected to FGC. In this respect it should be noted that the Special Rapporteur on Traditional Practices (ECOSOC, Commission on Human Rights) recently called for tact and patience regarding FGC eradication activities and warned against the dangers of demonizing cultures under cover of condemning practices harmful to women and girls (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1999/14).

What phrasing do you suggest? I agree with you about using "more proper," I'm having difficulty thinking of a way to phrase it and still express the same idea. Sparkleiya 23:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It's been over 2 weeks already and you have yet to respond with a better suggestion. I don't know whether you have no input on the matter or not, but I have waited a sufficient amount of time for a suggestion from you. I am going to change it to "more respectfully," Although something along the lines of "more accurately" would also be okay(but not as good). Sparkleiya 04:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, since we're talking about people making an analogy between surgery on intersexed babies and FGM in order to cast the former in a negative light, it makes sense to use the negative term. Whether the term is respectful is not really relevant, since we're talking about people who don't consider FGM acceptable. Besides, people who go to the article about FGM can read that some people prefer the term "female genital cutting". In fact, that's more or less all that the article about FGM says! Catamorphism 10:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

broken link

The "The Evolution of Self-Fertile Hermaphroditism: The Fog Is Clearing" link seems to be broken. - 66.53.174.248

Fixed - UtherSRG July 6, 2005 23:36 (UTC)

Original research paragraph

This paragraph bothers me:

• Today, people looking for simple answers are more likely to have faith in the sex chromosomes than in gonadal histology. But in fact, sex is determined by a multitude of factors, and when these factors are inconsistent, no one factor can be thought to determine the "true" sex, if such a concept even exists.

Is there a citation here? Or are we just providing the opinion of wikipedia editors? If there's a cite, we should add it. If there is not, we should strike it as original research. Nandesuka 05:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you could remove the word today and make it more general. This is a true statement and supportable by research with the exception of the bit about 'people looking for simple answers are more likely to have faith in the sex chromosomes than in gonadal histology.' Though this, I believe is inferable from the behavior of people – for example the history of the IOC's 'sexing' of athletes, the TX law case that said for the purposes of marriage, chromosomes determine who can marry whom.

I have to get to work now, but if you like, I can find you a few citations tonight if no one else has yet. -NickGorton 13:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure, whenever you have time. The part of the sentence I find especially original researchy is the implication that sex, as a biological concept, doesn't actually exist.Nandesuka

I've timed out on this and removed the offending paragraph. If someone provides references to a reputable source we can put it back in. Nandesuka 11:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

This sentence does not need a citation, because it is so basic that about every textbook on the matter will say the same thing. (Hence labeling that as original research is a suggestion that smells very much of either cluelessness or a political agenda.) Also, this paragraph does not state that a concept like biological sex might not exist, but it questions whether something like the "true" sex in cases of intersexuality does exist -- an entirely different pair of shoes. I'll try to clarify that paragraph, but I would appreciate if people feeling somehow "offended" would be actually read what they complain about, instead of removing what they obviously don't understand. -- AlexR 13:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, that is a ludicrous argument. If the statement is "so basic that about every textbook on the matter will say the same thing", then finding a citation to a reputable source will be trivial. Regarding your insinuations regarding political agendas, I suggest that you start assuming good faith before starting the snarking. What "offends" me about the sentence is not its content, but that it is not substantiated by any reference. Please carefully review Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Cite sources, and Wikipedia:Verifiability before inserting this claim again. I understand that you believe that these statements are "true", but your believing that does not obviate the need for us to provide reference to credible and verifiable primary or secondary sources for the benefit of our readers. I will gladly support the inclusion of this text or text similar to it, once we have citations to such sources as you say exist. Regards, Nandesuka 14:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Naturally, I will revert your removal again - you cannot go through the WP removing everything that does not have a citation to back it up, since then you would have to remove about 90% of Wikipedia. Also, "No orignial research" simply does not apply here - you might be the one who has to re-read that page. This is not some crackpot theory, but a mere statement of fact. Hence, NOR is not an argument here. I might point out that it is even less of an argument when somebody tries to use it after "I am offended" and "It says X" (when it never did) didn't work. You are not the first one to try that, but you would be the first to succeed. -- AlexR 18:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

We are not discussing "90% of Wikipedia", but this article. "...people looking for simple answers are more likely to have faith in the sex chromosomes" is not a "mere statement of fact," but an unsubstantiated assertion. And the first person in this conversation to introduce the term "offended" was, in fact, you. (I called the paragraph the "offending paragaph", but that is an extremely common phrase that is not the same as saying something is personally offensive). I would prefer to not engage in a revert war with you (or anyone) over this. If these are basic facts, then provide a citation, please. Thanks. Nandesuka 18:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, you already are doing a revert war here, so what are you complaining about? If you find that a sentence could be phrased better, do so. Removing stuff because it is supposed to be "originial research" when it clearly isn't is not the answer. And providing a citation is a bit of a problem for me at least - first, I have little access to English books, being in Germany. And second, this is so old news that when I read it I had no idea that one day I had to bring up a citation for something so bloody basic and trivial to placate somebody who wants to remove every bit of non-cited information on Wikipedia, and starts a revert war over it, too. -- AlexR 08:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

If I may make some suggestions based on the current wording: "Therefore, currently people looking for simple answers are more likely to have faith in the sex chromosomes than for example in gonadal histology,"

As written, this implies that some research has been done (one can almost imagine a questionnaire asking people whether they're looking for simple answers, and in what they place their faith). I can't say for sure that such research hasn't been done, but it seems unlikely. A better wording, also improving the grammar, might be "Thus, those nowadays looking for simple answers may be more likely to look towards the sex chromosomes than, for example, the histology of the gonads".

However, even this version is still questionable. There are two main problems. First, while probably true, it does indeed appear to be an original conclusion. I've tried a few Internet searches, and the only pages discussing simple (or easy) answers and chromosomes are Wikipedia or its derivatives. I did find a page indicating that there are many different views on this subject[1]. Unfortunately, this paragraph at present implies that most of these are too simplistic, which is not compatible with WP:NPOV.

"which was considered the one defining criterium at the beginning of the 10th century and after."

This cannot be correct. The microscope wasn't invented before the 16th century, so histology could not have been relevant. By the way, the correct word is criterion.

"However, sex is determined by a multitude of factors, and when these factors are inconsistent, no one factor can be thought to determine the "true" sex (to the exclusion of all other factors), if a "one true sex" even exists in intersex people."

This does endorse a particular point of view. Here are a few links. [2] [3] How about this alternative: "However, according to Eric Villain, 'The biology of gender is far more complicated than XX or XY chromosomes' [4]. Many different criterion for gender have been proposed, and there is little consensus."

- Jakew 11:07, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

To summarise, my proposed replacement is:

• Thus, people nowadays may be more likely to look towards the sex chromosomes than, for example, the histology of the gonads. However, according to researcher Eric Villain, "the biology of gender is far more complicated than XX or XY chromosomes".[5] Many differrent criteria have been proposed, and there is little consensus.[6]

Comments? - Jakew 11:12, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

• I like it. It is less POV, and provides a citation to a reputable source and thus is less original-researchy, which meets both of my criteria. Thanks for stopping by to help out! AlexR, do you find that text acceptable? Nandesuka 11:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a bit short, and I don't think that the reference to "researcher Eric Villain" is appropriate - since he is hardly the only person to make that claim. In fact, it is not so easy, except for researchers dedicated to chromosomes and chromosomes only, to find people who hold the other position. So that does need some more work. -- AlexR 23:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

"A valid third gender"

"Intersex is a valid third gender" - I reverted this comment this morning as I believe it may not have any basis in objective science or sociology ie; it may be just POV. I've no feelings on it one way or another, tho'? Discuss? Re-insert? - Ali-oops^✍ 11:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur. See also the question I asked in the last section, which there is (as of yet) no citation for. Nandesuka

Gender is a social construct, while sex is a physiological state. There is actually much research done into the fields of gender and sex, and most notably in the First Nations cultures, they do indeed have more than just two genders. Physiologically when referring to sex, we only have "male" and "female" and intersex as a state in between, but when it comes to gender we have to remember to think outside of North American culture and look to practices in the First Nations and cultural practices in Albania for example. I do disagree with the above statement, intersex as we define it here is a sex, not a gender, though there are alternate genders that could appeal to intersex individuals who may not feel like they conform in our dichotomous North American society. --Waterspyder 19:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I just wanted to say thanks to all of the editors of this page, I think many Wikipedia editors go unthanked and this page has been very educational for me. Thanks!

List of transgender-related topics

Does the link to the list of transgender topics belong in the article? Being intersexed and transgendered are (generally) not related, and that seems to be the only place in the article where there's any link implied. Ejcoffin 21:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I see that someone has removed the link to this list. I would argue that a link to the list should be included in the article, because intersexed people are more likely than the general population to identify as transgender or transsexual (due to the higher likelihood of their being assigned the wrong gender at birth), and because "intersexual" is included in the list of transgender-related topics. Catamorphism 05:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a great deal of historical tension between trans people and intersex people in this area, or more accurately between trans activists and intersex activists. Transsexualism is sometimes cast as "psychological intersexuality", a characterisation that some intersex people find offensive because they see intersexuality as a strictly physical phenomenon; and trans people have been accused of using intersexuality as a cover. For their part, transsexuals sometimes hold resentment against intersex people because intersexuality is thought to be privileged as a "genuine" medical condition. Intersex people who regard themselves firmly as men or women, especially those whose source of intersexing leaves them with visibly ambiguous or cross-gendered features, sometimes resent being treated as though they were transgender. Complicating the issue is that some intersex people do see themselves as transgender ar at any rate possessed of a non-binary gender identity; some trans people enter transition-related treatment and only then discover an underlying intersex condition; and there are some transgender people who regard themselves as male- or female-to-intersex transsexuals. I've only scratched the surface; relations between the transgender and intersex populations can be quite strained, and the fact that the definitional line between the two can be a bit blurry doesn't help.

Whether or not intersexuality and transgender are linked phenomena, both raise similar issues in the area of gender, identity, social politics, and culture. In a sense, each shines a light on the same area from a different direction. For that reason, I think it's important for this link to remain. --7Kim 11:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That's true that intersex people more often transgendered than the general population, but in my experience the majority of intersex people are okay with their birth genders. I'd think a note about the higher likelyhood would make sense (though I don't have anything to back it up), but I always get nervous at seeing intersexuality listed as a trans-related topic. If you think the link to the list belongs, go ahead and put it back :) Bethling 03:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Swyer's syndrome

I removed the bullet that said that XY people with Swyers syndrome have a male body (habitus or phenotype). Just wrong, wrong, wrong. Swyer's women have a female habitus, streak gonads, a normal-length vagina, a uterus but no ovaries because they became streak gonads. They will have primary ammenorhea (no period), but with hormone treatment may choose to have a period if they wish. They will have no spontaneous puberty because there are no functioning sex organs to produce hormones. I know this because I once ran the Androgen Insensitiviy Support Group in North America. We supported AIS, Swyer's Syndrome, Myer-Rokitansky and other intersex conditions where the body type (and usually gender identity is female). In fact, given hormonal treatment and donated eggs, Swyer's women can successfully carry a pregnancy. However, this is an encyclopedia and must be based on veriable sources. Here is one on Swyer's. I can produce dozens more if needed. Source on Swyer's Syndrome: http://www.diseasesdatabase.com/umlsdef.asp?glngUserChoice=31464 Donna

In the opening paragraph it says (something like) "any uni-sexual species" - but it should obviously say "non-unisexual," or words to that extent. Can't figure out how to fix it though.

Unisexual is correct. It *sounds* like it should mean a species that only has a single gender, but it actually means a species in which there are multiple genders and each individual is one discrete gender. As opposed to asexual species which have no genders at all, or hermaphroditic species in which each species is both genders, either sequentially or simultaneously. --JaceCady 03:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little leery of this term, as it collides head-on with the common understanding of "unisex" (gender-blind or sexually ambiguous). Strictly accurate language would be "sexually dimorphic species", but that doesn't exactly roll trippingly off the tongue. --7Kim 09:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Article needs illustration

I really need a picture to appreciate exactly what "ambiguous genitalia" means. Could someone upload a drawing or a photo of such genitalia? Thx.

The problem with that is that there isn't just one kind of intersexual, so there would have to be a large collection of photographs/drawings, and even that would fail to encompass intersexuality. Even if someone were to try, in some cases the "ambiguity" is only inside the body, and thus a photograph would be inappropriate. Sparkleiya 08:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so - one could easily put in one picture and make it clear that this is one of the most obvious syndroms, and is not intended to cover all syndroms. -- AlexR 04:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That could work, as long as you're careful to be very clear about it.

I don't think a picture is really "appropiate".

removed "by medical men"

I removed the phrase "by medical men" from the first paragraph, in the sentence, "The terms hermaphrodite and pseudohermaphrodite, introduced by medical men in the 19th century, are now considered misleading and stigmatizing, and patient advocates call for these terms to be abandoned."

Why was that there? No one would ever say "medical men", unless they were specifically trying to point out that they were men as opposed to women. Since the context is pejorative, I consider this implicitly sexist, so I just removed it. If someone has a legitimate claim that their being men had something to do with them choosing the terms "hermaphrodite and pseudohermaphrodite", then you can say so explicitly. -- Torgo 08:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was really surprised to see that this phrase ever persisted in the article at all! Thanks for removing it! Catamorphism 09:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Endless "politically correct" euphemisms

This seems to be one of those areas where, once given a name, that name acquires a stigma, then they choose a new name, and the process repeats itself. Just constantly changing the name won't keep most people from thinking it's weird and a bad thing. The only way to prevent that perception is if people have absolutely no idea what you mean by the term, which is apparently the goal. StuRat 21:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your comments have to do with improving this article. After all, as Wikipedians, we have to document how people use words; we don't get to dictate what words they should use. Catamorphism 21:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if people really do refer to those with this condition as "intersex" individuals, then that's OK. However, I suspect that more people call them hermaphrodites and only a small minority are trying to change the word to "intersex". In that case, we should ignore the PC lobby, and change the article name to hermaphrodite. StuRat 00:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia usually prefers the terms used by scientists or other experts who study a subject, when there is disagreement. In this case, "hermaphrodite" is a term that is used to describe animals of various species (sometimes used to describe species where hermaphrodism is normal), and "intersex" is a term that refers to the specific case of humans who are biologically not clearly male or female. I think it's useful to make the distinction, and most scientists who study gender and sex in humans agree. It doesn't really matter in this case what term "most people" use; we have an article called Nuclear weapon, but not one called Nukular weapon. Catamorphism 08:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That example is a bit silly, of course misspellings are not to be given articles, although I suppose common enough misspellings might deserve a redirect to the article. And I disagree that the scientific name should be used instead of the common name. We have an article on monarch butterfly, for example, and only a redirect at danaus plexippus. Also, giving a different name to a disorder when it occurs in humans versus other animals doesn't make much scientific sense, I suspect that's all coming from pseudoscience and the PC crowd. StuRat 12:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are so strongly convinced that modern scientists use the word "hermaphrodite" to describe humans, can you please point me to one published journal or conference paper in the field of biology that uses the word that way? Thanx. Catamorphism 20:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Have you read anything I've said ? I said that we should use what common people call them, not what scientist call them, the same as we do for butterflies. Pay attention ! StuRat 01:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was particularly replying to your comment: "Also, giving a different name to a disorder when it occurs in humans versus other animals doesn't make much scientific sense, I suspect that's all coming from pseudoscience and the PC crowd." I was wondering whether you have any sources that support this assertion of yours, or whether it's grounded only in your paranoia about the "PC police". Catamorphism 02:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If I had proof, I would have changed the article directly. Since I only have a suspicion, I just listed it here. Whenever the name of some disorder changes constantly, like "crippled" to "handicapped" to "disabled" to "specially-abled", I most definitely suspect the PC police are at it again, don't you ? StuRat 20:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think that. I think that when people try to use different language for terms in order to make people feel as comfortable as possible, we should respect those efforts. Language has always evolved over time, even long before the notion of "political correctness" was introduced; not all words that were appropriate 50 years ago are, or need to be, appropriate now. In the case of this particular article, I think that if people who are intersexed want to be referred to as "intersex" or "intersexed" rather than as "hermaphrodites", then I don't have any reason to not respect their preference, and neither should anybody else. One reason for this, as I alluded to before, is that "hermaphrodite" is a word that encompasses animals of many different species. This is similar to how many Asian-Americans dislike the term "Oriental" because it is used to refer to carpets as well as people. Catamorphism 20:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

(Starting tabs over again.)

If we follow your logic, we also need different terms for cancer in people versus animals, for heart disease in animals versus people (and why not different names for hearts as well ?), etc. We also need a different name for European people to distinguish from European cars. This makes no sense to me. StuRat 20:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If you've never been part of a group that has had fear and prejudice directed at it, I'd say it makes perfect sense to me that respecting people in marginalized groups makes no sense to you. People with cancer, people with heart disease, and European people have not been discriminated against by virtue of being in those groups (though people from specific parts of Europe might have been). Catamorphism 22:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

People with cancer and heart disease have been discriminated against by denying them jobs, and people of European descent have been discriminated against by Affirmative Action policies in the US that award jobs and scholarships to "people of color" (meaning everyone but whites). StuRat 01:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Anyway, consensus is not going to smile upon you if you try and move this article to "hermaphrodite" or whatever you want to do with it, so I'll quit trying to convince you that there isn't a conspiracy to oppress upper-middle-class white males if you decide to quit going on a mission to insist everyone refer to intersexed people by a term that most of them dislike. Catamorphism 04:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, and I will leave the "intersexed" (hermaphrodites) to take their rightful place by the "differently-abled" (disabled), "special" (retarded), and "legally challenged" (criminals). But don't call me an upper-middle-class white male. I now choose to call myself a "poverty deprived, pigmentation-challenged, feminity-deprived individual who speaks 'ivorics' ". LOL. StuRat 12:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if you're actually interested in understanding the situation of intersexed people rather than parroting stuff you heard on right-wing talk radio, I suggest reading the Intersex Society of North America's FAQ on why "intersex" and "hermaphrodite" are not synonyms. It's short. Catamorphism 22:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't listen to such shows, as I'm not right wing. In fact, I'm rather liberal on many issues: pro-choice, pro-marijuana legalization, pro-prostitution legalization, anti-death penalty (kind of on the fence on that one), pro-national health care, anti-monopoly, pro-government regulation of most industries, pro-gay marriage, pro-direct democracy, etc. Do I sound right-wing to you ? StuRat 22:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for making assumptions. Mocking language changes that are meant to make people feel more accepted and comfortable as parts of society is certainly a right-wing cliché, but I suppose I shouldn't assume that anyone who joins in the fun of that is automatically right-wing about other issues. I really recommend you read the FAQ that I linked to; it explains why "hermaphrodite" and "intersex" actually mean different things. It's not just a matter of changing "black" to "African-American" or something analogous, and so I probably shouldn't have gone down that road in the first place. Catamorphism 22:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I read it, and they do list "removing stigma" as a reason, as I suspected. What neither you nor them seem to acknowledge is that, as soon as people actually figure out what "intersexed" means, it will acquire exactly the same stigma. Then what, rename it yet again hoping for a different result ? To eliminate the stigma, you need to change human nature, not just the name. StuRat 23:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"Hermaphrodite" implies two complete sets of genitals, one male and one female. That encourages fetishists (intersex support groups already get plenty of demands for attention from fetishists; what they want doesn't exist), is based on the idea that "true sex" resides in the gonads (scientifically specious; concept predates knowledge of genetics), and tends to imply that there is a "true sex" (which usually contradicts the sex apparent to others, and experienced by the intersexed person). "Intersex" implies an identity, and facilitates the conflation of anatomy with identity, thus confusing doctors even more than it alarms parents (and adults with intersex conditions whose identity is fairly close to typical male or female, that is, most of them). Further, "intersex" doesn't have a clear definition, so doctors who think of "intersex" as so shameful that no one could stand to be identified with the term, tend to modify their own definition of the term from moment to moment, in order to avoid labeling any person or group of people with the term. Thus, although CAH (congenital adrenal hyperplasia) has always been considered the most common cause of intersexuality, doctors have recently been agreeding with CARES Foundation (a support group for CAH parents) that CAH is not an intersex condition. This is an extension of the word game used by medical men in the latter half of the 19th century (I say men because not all people who were thinking and working in medical terms in that period were "doctors", and because they were indeed all men, none of them women; to say "medical people" would seem preciously PC). They were disturbed to find that ambiguous sexual anatomy was rather common; they labeled all such individuals "hermaphrodites", but chose to locate "true sex" in the gonads. Thus, apparent "hermaphrodites" were re-labeled "pseudo-hermaphrodites"; the only "true hermaphrodite" was an individual with microscopically confirmed presence of both ovarian and testicular tissue. In that era, without sterile technique or anesthesia, examination of gonads was not possible in a living individual. Thus the definition itself eliminated the possibility of a living "true hermaphrodite." A new nomenclature based on "DSD" has been elaborated by the international Lawson Wilkins Society for Pediatric Endocrinology/European Society for Pediatric Endocrinology Consensus Group, and will be published in the "Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders" in Pediatrics (June issue, probably). It's better for medical terms to have neutral affect, and to label conditions rather than individuals. Thus, patients with Trisomy 21 are no longer labeled "Mongoloid Idiots." There's a definition of "DSD" at http://www.dsdguidelines.org/htdocs/clinical/dsds_defined.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherylchase (talk • contribs)

Merge with Hermaphrodite?? (see section above)

We need an expert to determine whether or not "hermaphroditism"/"pseudohermaphroditism" are medically accepted, non-offensive words for "intersexuality".

• (1) If so, we should merge these articles.
• (2) If not, we should make the relationship between these more clear by doing this:
  • the article "hermaphroditism" deals only with animals and plants, so it should be moved to two new locations, "hermaphroditism (plants)" and "hermaphroditism (animals)".
  • Then the page "hermaphroditism should be changed into a disambig page with the following options:

1. for the condition known as hermaphroditism/pseudohermaphroditism in humans, see "intersexuality". This usage now considered offensive by some.
2. for hermaphroditism in non-human animals, see "hermaphroditism (animals)"
3. for hermaphroditism in plants, see "hermaphroditism (plants)"

Can we put this proposal up to a vote? JianLi 19:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't need an expert for that. The answer is no, and Cherylchase explained why in the above comment. Catamorphism 19:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So then would you agree with the steps outlined above in order to avoid confusion for users who, seeking to learn about human hermaphrodites, are redirect to intersexuality? Also, I have started a discussion at the Science Reference Desk so that this topic may gain more exposure. JianLi 20:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess I don't see the problem. Even before your edits, Hermaphroditism already had this note near the beginning: "Note: The term "hermaphrodite" has historically been used to describe people with ambiguous genitalia or biological sex..." and so on. Catamorphism 20:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have removed the question from the reference desk; that's not the right place for discussions like this. If posting the question to both talk pages fails to get enough exposure, maybe the village pump would do, but there's no need to assume ahead of time that posting here will not be enough. Anyway, I agree with Catamorphism, and I don't see why we would need to split hermaphrodite into separate articles for animals and plants. There is already a prominent disambig line at the top of that page; I don't think readers will have any trouble finding the article they're looking for. --Allen 20:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)