Talk:Ovotesticular syndrome

Article move

I see that there are efforts online to rebrand "true hermaphroditism" as "ovotesticular disorder of sex development". This is not in widespread usage, and the page should not be moved. Natureium (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean this isn’t a widespread usage?

True Hermaphroditism is technically outdated. CycoMa (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It's technically outdated, offensive and incorrect, humans can not be actual hermaphrodties. Using the old name is confusing and misleading.★Trekker (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I have added several reliable source in the lead section which confirms that "true hermaphroditism" is the former name for the condition.★Trekker (talk) 12:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

There are also many sources that use the name "true hermaphroditism". We aren't in the practice of staying on the bleeding edge of what people want to rebrand things as. If you want to change this, since it's already been contested, you need a move request. Natureium (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

A few points, *Treker - mainly about your sources.

* 1 Isn't a reliable source per WP:MEDRS. It just isn't.

* 2 Has no reference to support the claim that "(OT-DSD) [was] formerly known as “true hermaphroditis" and isn't really much help, it's a pretty short and not particularly informative book chapter.

* 3 Also has no reference to support the claim "...is formerly known as “true hermaphroditism,”". It is also a case report and not a review article, so not really suitable per MEDRS.

* Source 4 is a duplicate of 3

* 5 This source actually confirms that the name change is proposed and that the current consensus title for this medical condition is indeed "True hermaphrodite"

I also note that looking through Google Scholar (a quick but crude metric) shows "True hermaphrodite" outnumbering "Ovotesticular DSD" by 4:1 (reducing to 2:1 when post 2016 articles are included). The medical community seems to prefer the "True hermaphrodite" term, and that really should be what is used until there's a more firm consensus to change the title in a significant number of medical sources. I also note that per MEDRS "Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering any conclusions made by secondary sources." which is arguably what has happened here in the attempt to move the page. If you do wish to discuss the move further, you must go through the move discussion process, not just unilaterly move the page around. Nick (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok let the trash term stay then. Hopefully the doctors come to their senses soon and get rid of the garbage name.★Trekker (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Wasn’t there a consensus on this back in 2006. Where they came to the agreement that the term hermaphrodite is outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 20:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Stick to WP:Common name and WP:NCMED. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes there was a consensus statement involved in 2006 (available here: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-0738), which involved ~50 experts in the field determining that "hermaphroditism" and its variants were not scientifically viable terms in describing human beings. Officially, ICD-11 (https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/989785304) has replaced "true hermaphroditism" with ovotesticular disorder of sex development. I think it's fair to say the term is outdated, confusing, scientifically problematic, stigmatizing, and pejorative. I'm a bit confused why this article wasn't merged years ago. Superraptor123 (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Brief, continuation of previous comment, but "pseudohermaphroditism" has the same issues. I tried to expand the "terminology" section to show this [1], but really it should likely just be merged with another pre-existing article. Superraptor123 (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Non sensical

So, we are talking of a disorder called "true hermaphroditism" which is not true "hermaphroditism". I guess the problem is that there are politics involved, as always, although I don't know how. If not, I just don't get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.219.148.66 (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

What was wrong with the symptom section?

This is a article for a disease so I don’t understand why the symptoms section I added was removed? CycoMa (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

If you read and understand WP:MEDRS, it should be clear to you why orpha.net is not WP:MEDRS-compliant. I doesn't even pass the WP:Reliable sources guideline. That is why I reverted.

Also, don't create empty sections. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Prevalence

The figures quoted here are inconsistent. The 0.0012% rate would suggest there are about a 100,000 cases in the world not the few hundred confirmed. The source cited does not back up this figure. Suggest the only figure we can keep is confirmed cases so as not to overestimate the number of people affected.

5.181.107.89 (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The 500 cases is confirmed cases and that 500 number was in the 1990s. There have obviously been more documented cases since. I haven’t added a new number of confirmed cases because there isn’t one at the moment.

Also that whole 0.0012% is merely just possible cases not confirmed cases. There are always individuals who don’t go to doctors or some places just straight up don’t document cases. If you have a source that says there are 100,000 people with this condition please show it.CycoMa (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay I’m gonna need to analyze the sources

Many sources keep contradicting each other and some information is outdated. CycoMa (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I would say sources should be known reputable medical journals and not just a google search. There are a lot of political agendas floating around on this topic. 108.53.170.236 (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Contradiction in sources

I keep scrolling through sources on this topic and many of them keep contradicting each other. Like I have seen sources claim spermatogenesis does occur in ovotestis and some say they don’t.

I’m sorry that of the sources keep contradicting each other it’s just I am the only person editing on this article. CycoMa (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

IP inquiry

What about the case of; Sr. Josephine Rosenthal? Maria Rosenthal Immaculate Conception? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:8744:4F00:8057:22C6:E737:52D0 (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, but all I see is one site that maintains the story, which reads like a tall-tale. No coverage in reliable sources. Anastrophe (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Seminar in Human Sexuality

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 1 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Irodriguez69 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Irodriguez69 (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)