Talk:Intersex/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Archiving

This page needs archiving. Some items are now dormant. Any preferences for method, or is cut-and-paste OK? Mish (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Had a look at MiszaBot config, and it is set to archive at 30 days. As this page is quite full, are there any objections to my downing it to 15 days? Mish (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

feedback sought on proposal that this article be included as sociology and LGBT projects

before I begin building a formal proposal, could I have an idea of whether there are any strong objections to this, please? Mish (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable concept. I can see this being both an LGBT and a sociological issue. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Done Mish (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The response from the LGBT project was to do this immediately, so I have added the sociology & LGBT project tags to the page, and requested review grading by class and importance, pointing out that the page has been under medicine and sexology/sexuality, but it is evolving towards two sections, one for sociology/LGBT aspects, and one for medical/sexology aspects. Mish (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

identitary + medical section

somebody has corrected 'identitary' to read 'identity', I did wonder about it when I saw it, as it was a new one on me. The word does not turn up in the Oxford, Cambridge or Miriam-Webster Dictionaries. However, doing a google turns up 185,000 instances of the word, so it can't be a mistake, poor spelling or accidental - it doesn't suggest 'identity' instead as per misspelling. The context always appears the same as this case. I'm not too bothered about it, but should we revert it back seeing how somebody went to the trouble of putting it in there? Mish (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

medical section

I was searching for LGBT health, and discovered there is no article, but there is an article called LGBT issues in medicine, so I have set up redirects for LGBT health to that article, as well as Transgender health (also missing) to the relevant sections. I have suggested a small section for Intersex health that would point to this one, as well as suggesting replacing all the 'issues' simply with health. If anybody could help with that section it would be appreciated, bearing in mind that many of the issues will be dealt with in the relevant locations - however, it is an important topic that could cover some of the more general needs of LGBT people that can get lost in the interminable discussions about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin in some sections (could be irony, or maybe just sarcasm).

On this article, specifically, we were discussing the need to work on the medical section. I have canvassed for an illustration, but as yet nothing has been forthcoming. I do think it is important that people get the best possible information within the constraints of an encyclopedia, as it may be the first point of call for many people looking to find out about intersex - and that may be individuals or parents (and maybe doctors, who knows). I am not competent to impart medical information, and feel very strongly that is not my job, but I am happy to support those who wish to do so. I have been adding things to the social section as time allows and as things occur to me - but I think it would be good if we can get the medical section into better shape. As somebody with an interest in the sociology of medicine and sexuality, I think it is important that this does not simply cover a clinical and scientific view of intersex, but looks at the problems intersex people face and the decisions they may have to make throughout their lives, examining the options open to them and what the implications are. Perhaps that is beyond the remit of an article like this, but it would be good if we could make a start on presenting the basic information in a way that people can follow up references and links to access more information if they need it. At the moment the medical section is pretty thin on references, and I am reluctant to slap 'citation needed' all over it. Could we have some idea whether people are interested in working on that section still, please? Also, do people think the unreferenced section on Anglo Saxon terminology is valuable here - or would it be better relocated into Hermaphroditism? That would be my choice. Mish (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Not having to see all the pictures

I'd like to be able to read this article without having to see all those pictures. 209.86.226.33 (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed one of them. Mish (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

ISNA site no longer functioning

The ISNA site seems to no longer be active, which means that a lot of the material that uses that site as a source now has citations which are dead links. Does anybody know the best way to manage this? We can either remove the links, and leave those bits unsourced, which risks fact tagging at some point, or we can look for alternative sources. What do people suggest? Mish (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a SQL error on their side. Give 'em some time to get it fixed up before we do anything. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I didn't mean straight away - I just figure that as they have been defunct for over a year now, are no longer a financial entity, having no funds or staff, I'm thinking that without paying hosting and maintenance fees it is only a matter of time before something like this happens anyway. We need to start looking for alternate sources before the whole page becomes compromised and somebody starts fact-tagging related sections for lack of sources. It would be better if we can work this article up that reduces the likelihood of that. Mish (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I e-mailed somebody formerly connected with ISNA today, and they weren't aware of the situation - the site is back up again. I think we need to look at sourcing this information elsewhere in the future though, because I guess there is no guarantee they will maintain the site now they are defunct. Mish (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to lede

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

This needs to be supplemented with something about how this is usually understood to be congenital, involving chrmosome, morphologic, genital and/or gonadal anomalies, such as diversion from stereotypical XX=female or XY=female presentations, sex reversal (XY=female, XX=male), genital ambiguity, sex developmental differences, etc. Any suggestions? Mish (just an editor) (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a whole article about sex(ual) development, maybe we can redirect or cite from this article on wiki? 07:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chbse (talk • contribs)

This does not connected to my question really.

There is a redirect from sexual development to sexual differentiation and there is Sex differences in humans, and neither of these are about intersex.

There is an article about Disorders of Sex Development, but it is more or less a stub which links to here. Intersex is not synonymous with DSD, and while medical and scientific experts have chosen to replace 'intersex' with 'DSD', intersex people have not; even intersex people and activists who support this nomenclature still refer to intersex, and themselves as intersex activists (not DSD activists). Because the most commonly associated word is intersex, and has been for fifty years, not the neologistic acronymDSD, the dominant usage has to remain. It is not our job to promote new terminology, only reflect established usage.

None of these would be appropriate for this article to be replaced as a redirect to. You can link to any of these articles from here, and DSD is already linked to Intersexuality#Disorders of sex development. I have added the sexual differentiation links at the end. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 10:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I read somewhere that

someone with a penis and a vagina has only 1 orgasmic organ, or whatever you call it. So, basically, they can't just stick it in themselves and.........

I dunno, but some people can stick their heads up their own backsides quite well. Mish (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit needed

The following is the current second sentence of Section 3.4.2 (Conditions): "Although there neither no less common chromosomal sex nor mosaicism/chimerism, but just the most common types (XY or XX), less common phenotypes still appear in such cases."

Is it me, or does this sentence not make sense? Even if there is some correct parsing of it that is technically grammatically correct, at the very least it's poorly worded, given that I'm a reasonably intelligent person and yet still haven't yet grasped it. I'd take a stab at re-wording it myself, but even after reading it several times, I am still unable to discern what it's saying or trying to say. 12.155.58.181 (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - it is meaningless. No idea how you would rewrite it. Mish (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No good ideas on rephrasing just that one sentence, so I yanked it and re-phrased the overall point that I think it was leading to along with the two sentences that followed it. If someone feels they can state the information that was originally being related more accurately than did I (but, of course, without using that original nonsense sentence), then by all means, please do so. 12.155.58.181 (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

DSDs

As an Intersex person I take MASSIVE offence at being reffered to as a "disorder". The term DSD was coined by just two Intersex people. It should not be considered mainstream or desired by Intersex people in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.192.5 (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Potential intersexuality to watch out for

There has been a report out from Blick that Caster Semenya might be intersexual, based on an Athletics South Africa sex test result. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed her from the list and she's been put back, so it is probably worth discussing here. The problem is that she may well be intersexed, but the media reports are based on an unnamed source quoted in The Daily Telegraph,[1] not the official report. I know that The Daily Telegraph is an RS, but at the moment I'm concerned that adding her is based on an unsubstantiated claim. While the IAAF have not denied the claim, they have recommended caution [2] as the claim is not official, and they have said that the results need to be examined further. They've also been described as saying the the results were not conclusive. Thus I'd suggest that she probably shouldn't be added yet, and that we can wait to add her to the list until after the official reports come out - or at least until there's something better than an unnamed source. - Bilby (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reworded this. There is no point keeping this out, as it has been reported in reliable sources around the world. As long as we are clear in the text that this has been reported, with the sources, as long as the sources are reliable the fact that we don't don't know who their source is is not our concern - they will have done whatever fact-checking is necessary to ensure that the source is reliable enough for them to print this without risking being sued, and they will have run it past their lawyers - that is why they are called WP:RS, rather than a tabloid like The Sun. We are not saying (any more) that she is intersex, but that she has been reported as such (in WP:RS), and that is in like with policies on accuracy and WP:BLP. When there is some official statement, then we can change the text if necessary. Why should we wait to insert information that is already stated in major national newspapers and broadcasting companies around the world? Mish (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's better. I guess my worry is that it is that the Daily Telegraph can be trusted to honestly report what their source has said. However, their source can't be trusted to be right. When the IAAF releases their findings we'll have something that can be trusted. Especially as the IAAF has already stated that caution should be taken with the claims. - Bilby (talk) 11:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that I find the way this has been handled distasteful. The leaking of somebody's private medical details in national newspapers is unethical, and I am sure there will be repercussions about the way this has been handled. This could have been managed without this publicity, but there are a number of issues at stake. If she registered such high testosterone levels during a dope test, further tests would be necessary to ensure she was not using steroids, those would be to see if she was producing testosterone through internal gonads or her adrenal gland, for example. There would also be other possibilities (some form of transgenderism), so, I guess that they would advise caution about making definitive statements. Whatever the outcome, it is still a notable discussion about intersex in sport. And, whatever I might feel about the inappropriateness of the public release of this information, it has happened, and we need to reflect that. Mish (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. I'm just not sure we can count the information as publicly released - leaked and unconfirmed, but not released. That said, it may also be the case that we can't keep it out, in which case careful wording may be the way to go. - Bilby (talk) 11:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not list Caster Semanya as an intersex individual. All reports are from unconfirmed sources. Media sources do not count as actual sources. It is likely that Caster is an intersex individual but refrain from listing her until the official report from the IAAF is released. Listing rumors, speculation, unofficial information and in this case, non scholarly sources is in violation of Wikipedia.

We are just reporting noteweorthy speculation as reported in WP:RS, such as UK National Broadsheets, not making assertions about her per se. That is in line with WP:BLP. Mish (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia = "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment."
         

Noteworthy speculation in this case is in violation. The listing of Caster Semanya is based on SPECULATIVE reports and not official. Therefore, it is not respecting the subject's privacy and is contributing to the spread of titillating claims. It is also causing possible harm to the individual whose privacy has been violated with UNCONFIRMED reports.

Also, "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic."

These reports are unconfirmed and are NOT COMPLETELY SOURCED. Media outlets claiming to have "inside information" that Caster is an inter sex individual is NOT COMPLETELY SOURCED. In addition, since it is not completely sourced, it has potential to not be neutral. Listing Caster is in clear violation of Wikipedia rules. Please refrain from listing her until there is something that is completely sourced. Speculative reports claiming inside information is not such.

These reports are sourced :- The Guardian. The Independent, The BBC, etc. The are not tabloid nespapers, they are major national broadsheets and boradcasters, i.e. WP:RS. They do what is necessary to check facts and legality. As I said, what we are recording here is what is said in WP:RS, nothing more. The situation highlights certain aspects of discrimination against intersex people. Mish (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

They are not COMPLETELY sourced. They are basing their reports on "leaked information". Seclusive leaked information is not completely sourced..... Completely sourced is a source that is readily available and fully transparent for everyone to refer to. Can you go find and refer to the leaked report that these news agencies are looking at that is supposedly by the IAAF? No, you can't. It is not completely sourced. Furthermore, the IAAF has said it has not reached a conclusion and its research is ongoing so it is unlikely these news agencies have the final product.

Yes, but we are not stating that this is true or false, we are detailing the speculation about this in WP:RS. Mish (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Image: Ambiguous_genitalia.jpg

The image Ambiguous_genitalia.jpg (near bottom of page) has a subject line in this article that refers to the image as belonging to a "dead baby", yet the image information itself does not state this. This means at best, this is original research. More than likely, it is a weak attempt to justify the image, which is fine and doesn't need justifying. Either way, I don't have (or want) an account, and can't change the page to edit out the phrase "dead baby" out of the title as the page is semi-protected. I ask that someone else please do so, as it is inaccurate to use the term "dead baby", not supported by any evidence, and there is no reasonable rationale to include this uncited "fact" in the description of the image. tia. 98.26.254.61 (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I relabeled it as "infant autopsy", since that's what the linked source says it came from. Dicklyon (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The source makes it clear the baby died, and the other pictures are all of the vivisection. Mish (talk) 08:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If the baby is dead, it is not vivisection, by definition. Use a dictionary.Pustelnik (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Section break - neologism

This article seems to have a neologistic agenda; can we please stop using wikipedia for cliquish uses?96.28.88.126 (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What does this mean? Mish (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think they're saying that the term 'intersex' is a neologism and is a replacement for hermaphrodite .. or something, and that those who wish this are part of some clique or other - Alison ^❤ 03:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right. That's just ignorance then. The term has been around decades, was coined in medicine, and has been used by activists for nearly two decades now, all well documented, and sourced in the article. DSD is the neologism used by a clique to replace both terms, but which has yet to catch on. Mish (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

hypospadias image removal

I've removed this image since it is clearly not from an intersexed individual, and I believe goes against what this article is trying to do.--Cpt ricard (talk) 01:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll restore it - hypospadias can be symptomatic of intersex, and the image of a dead baby's genitals is not from somebody with a specifically intersex condition either, and I believe that is against what the article is about also. Mish (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The image of the dead baby's genitals actually ARE from an intersex condition- ambiguous genitalia. Directly relevant to the article, in terms of showing what that looks like. The hypospadias shown in the image is NOT ambiguous genitalia - it's not even a good example of hypospadias - and will mislead a reader into thinking that that's an example of intersexuality, which it's not. I'll be removing the image again for the reasons I've stated. If we can find a clearer image of hypospadias with clearly ambiguous genitals I'm all for it, but as it stands a reader can click on the link and see what hypospadias is all about. This is not an article about hypospadias. Hypospadias may be found in intersex individuals, and so therefore we need to find a picture that suits that accordingly.--Cpt ricard (talk) 07:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that it is common for people to equate ambiguous genitalia with intersex - it is a common mistake, but not one that we should be reinforcing here. This is why I would prefer the dead baby's genitals were removed. If you find a better image, by all means replace it. In the mean time, please do not edit war. Use this page to discuss rather than insist on your own way, simply because you don't like the image. The article does refer to hypospadias (which was was listed under DSD last time I looked). This stays until either a better one is found, or the image of a dead baby's ambiguous genitalia. Mish (talk) 11:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The image looks like iatrogenic hypospadias from a botched circumcision, look at the scars and how it is missing tissues (frenulum, prepuce etc.) a natural human has on both clitoris and penis (so I assume on intermediates too). Sorry for the awkward English here, I hope I made myself understood. If it helps: please see these illustrations from Handbook for Parents of Children with Disorders of Sex Development, they might be useful if permission is obtained to reuse them. Another site has illustrations of different grades of CAH drawn as a cross section, also educative. krisCrash 20:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I definitely won't be back so don't worry. It's sad that some pages are seen as a stronghold. But from the article: "Intersexuality in humans refers to intermediate or atypical combinations of physical features that usually distinguish male from female;" which includes ambiguous genitalia. I won't remove it but consider this: as an anatomist, I can tell you the hypospadias picture does the article a disservice (as krisCrash pointed out, it's not even a good hypospadias image). The fetal image at least is relevant, but like you said it's not great either. If you want the article to be better, it's your call, since you won't let anyone else have a say. Good luck.--Cpt ricard (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Kallmann Syndrome

I would ike to question the factual verity of some of the sexual conditions listed. The example I am going to use is Kallmann syndrome. It is a condition where a person has a lack of smell and do not produce hormones naturally. How does this relate intersexuality, a condition where a person is born with male and female genitals. Likewise, the Kallmann syndrome articles uses two examples of people, Jimmy Scott and Brian Brett who are not labeled as intersex people.

The phrasing of Kallmann syndrome states that it is an intersex condition, which highly implies that if you have this condition, you are intersex. Where is the source that states it is an intersex condition? Why is Kallmann syndrome never stated in its article as being an intersex condition or a form of intersex. I would like for this thought process to be used on the listed conditions as they can greatly affect a person's view. SandSan (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, and have gone ahead and removed it. The article previously stated that ISNA consider it to be, but there's actually no evidence that they do. A quick scan of Goog seems to indicate that the opposite is true, in fact - Alison ^❤ 18:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Gender Incongruence

Following on from the recent proposals for DSM-5, and in the light of a conversation with James on a different article, I have inserted a section on Gender Incongruence. I have inserted a link to a position statement from OII Australia on this issue, but need to declare that I am quoted at the end of their position statement. I am not currently a member of OII Australia. Mish (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)