Talk:Intersex/Archive 1

'much more common'? numbers, please?

Some conservative religious leaders (e.g. Chuck Colson) have attacked moves for greater social acceptance of intersexuality, on the grounds that, according to their interpretation of the Bible, God made humans to have only two distinct sexes, and that any other intermediate sexes are "natural evils" caused by human disobedience to God.


 * I pulled this because 1. It's unsupported, 2. Does not square with my experience in evangelical faith. I have never heard it expressed as a point of doctrine in evangelical circles that the children pay for the sins of the fathers.  That's OT.  All that being said, a much better way to approach the issue would be to write a nice NPOV article explaining the difficulty (as asserted here) that evangelicals such as Chuck ("The Sermonator") Colson may or may not have with intersexuality.

Chuck Colson had an article ("Blurred Biology, How many sexes are there?") on his Prison Fellowship website until the beginning of 2000 attacking people who believe that 'corrective' surgery should not be performed on infants or children, who by their nature cannot consent, but if it is to be done at all should be left until adolesence or adulthood, to allow the person concerned choice about their own body. Colson painted this as part of some liberal plot to destroy the divinely division of humans into male and female. He probably took it down because people found it offensive, and I have not seen it; but I have seen multiple sources mention its existence. See http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cira.htm and http://www.isgi.org/director.html. The later also recounts that when her Baptist church found out that she was intersexual, many of them wanted nothing to do with her any more, including the pastor. -- SJK

I pulled the following text from http://www.religioustolerance.org/igm_circ.htm


 * Chuck Colson has written a particularly insensitive attack on intersexuals. He states (in part):


 * "The Bible teaches that the Fall into sin affected biology itself - that nature is now marred and distorted from its original perfection. This truth gives us a basis for fighting evil, for working to alleviate disease and deformity - including helping those unfortunate children born with genital deformities."


 * "...for the Christian, nature is not our basis for determining normality. Scripture tells us how God created us before the Fall, and how he intended us to live: as males and females, reflecting His own image. We take our standards and identity from His revelation of our original nature." 9

I wonder whether he changed his views, what. The quote could be used like this: "Chuck Colson once wrote . . . (source no longer available)." Ed Poor

This mixture of Colson and commentary is copied verbatim from http://www.isgi.org/director.html


 * Prison Fellowship's Chuck Colson oversimplified intersex birth conditions and inferred that genetic intersexuals are homosexuals, as written is his commentary titled: "Blurred Biology, How Many Sexes Are There?" (As of 1/2000 the article is no longer displayed on Prison Fellowship web files) In the commentary Colson decries intersexuals as a "bizarre fantasy". Mr. Colson responds, as did the folks in my little Baptist church, with a 'knee jerk' that is more concerned about who an intersexual may become, than who they are. Even Mr. Colson acknowledges that, "Hermaphrodites are people born with both male and female sexual characteristics. In a matter of-fact manor he admits that babies afflicted with this deformity usually undergo plastic surgery and hormone therapy, which enables them to function as either a male or a female."


 * What Colson absolutely overlooks is that, this same dogma which mandates a child to be assigned a 'male' or 'female' socially or through surgery, very frequently assigns a role that is NOT the God-given identity of the child. Chuck complains that "The difference today is that the unfortunate victims of sexual deformities are being dragged in as biological proof of Kinsey's theory--ultimately for ideological purposes." It appears Colson also has an agenda in the mix. Because of Colson's high-profile ministry many may follow his ignorance about intersexuals. Please, Mr. Colson, make your stand for godliness! Just don't manipulate the circumstances of other's lives to try and prove your point about another issue! While the rhetoric goes on, my fellow evangelical Christians are forcefully 'screwing little babies heads on backwards' to match a body born outside of 'acceptable' appearance with an unachievable ideal.

Wat is it calld if 2 Y cromosoms and nuthing els? I thot XX is female and YX is male and YY is ljhhj or is it yale?


 * They're dead... A minimum of one X is required to survive.

I added "some intersex individuals have resented the medical intervention," because the guy *I* knew certainly felt that way. Bill

This article contains much confused and contradictory information and many factual errors. It also leaves a lot to be desired by the NPOV criterion as well. Please note that the article starts by defining "intersexual" as a person with anatomic features of both sexes.

1. In the same paragraph the author claims that hermaphrodite is a pejorative term. So is intersexual as a noun. Why is it any less offensive to refer to a person as an "intersexual" than as a "pseudohermaphrodite?" Intersex refers to a physical condition of the reproductive organs of the body (as do the terms hermaphroditism and pseudohermaphroditism). The latter are technical terms referring to some degree of mixture of gonads of both sexes, or some degree of mismatch betwee the sex of the gonads and the genital anatomy respectively) and are still useful and used terms referring to a condition in a medical context. It sounds just as insensitive and objectifying to refer to a person with an intersex condition such as female pseudohermaphroditism as an intersexual as to call her a pseudohermaphrodite; I've never heard a physician use either term to refer to a person.

2. In the second paragraph is the assertion that the "majority" of infants "ambiguous enough to become the subject of specialist medical attention... are subjected to surgery to disguise their sexual ambiguity." This is both factually wrong and a significant NPOV violation. Even in the heyday of the Hopkins approach to intersex conditions, only a small minority of the infants referred to pediatric endocrinologists for evaluation were ever referred for surgery. A significant further reduction of the percentage has occurred since 1997.

3. In the third paragraph is another erroneous statement. Absence of a Y chromosome is not sufficient to result in the development of ovaries. Genes from both X chromosomes are nearly always necessary as well.

4. The terms hermaphroditism and male and female pseudohermaphroditism are not "unfortunate vestiges of 19th century thinking." They are still-used technical terms referring to some degree of mixture of gonads of both sexes, or some degree of mismatch betwee the sex of the gonads and the genital anatomy respectively). Use of the terms is certainly not tantamount to the assumption that the gonads are the only important criterion of sex, as the author implies.

5. I agree with the author that sex cannot be defined by a single biological criterion and that the concept of a person's "true sex" is not a useful way to think about sex and gender. Somehow I doubt that the author is aware that John Money was most responsible for conceptualizing and propagating these points. Shall we give him credit?

6. Determination of a Y chromosome was not the test that originally caused confusion at single sex sporting events; it was the use of the buccal smear and the assumption that absence of a second X chromosome implied presence of a Y. Use of screening for presence of Y would primarily be confounded by women with androgen insensitivity and was not the method that originally engendered the confusion and controversy.

7. CAH due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency is the most common form of female pseudohermaphroditism presenting as ambiguous genitalia due to virilizing adrenal hormones. It might be more precise to describe the external genital anatomy as ranging from unambiguous female to unambiguous male, with most somewhat in between. Rarer forms of CAH due to other enzyme deficiencies can result in ambiguity of genetically male infants due to inadequate testosterone synthesis.

8. In the section on biological causes of intersex conditions, the conspicuous presence of Turner and Klinefelter syndromes as the primary examples of abnormal sex chromosome complements would lead most uninformed readers to conclude that these are usually intersex conditions when nearly all individuals with both syndromes are entirely unambiguous females and males respectively. A far better example of abnormal chromosomes associated with intersex would be mixed gonadal dysgenesis.
 * Technically, Klinefelter definitely is intersex, and Turner by most definitions. It should also be noted that although reliable statistics do not, as far as I know, exist, the number of people with Klinefelter who do change gender later in life is most likely a lot higher than one would expect. Also, mosaic chromosomes are not mentioned, but that also happens. -- AlexR 01:30, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I disagree for the following reason. If we rely on the original definition presented at the beginning of the article, which specifies anatomic incongruities, then "technically" neither Klinefelter nor Turner syndrome qualify as ?interxex conditions.? Both are examples of congenital anomalies of sexual development, congenital hypogonadism, and abnormalities of the sex chromosomes, but less than 1% of xxy boys or 45x girls have any congenital anatomic incongruity with their sex.
 * If we broaden the definition of intersex to include an incongruity between chromosomes and anatomic sex, then Klinefelter qualifies for inclusion as an ?intersex condition,? and I wouldn?t argue with broadening the definition of intersex beyond that proposed by the current version of the article. However, if we broaden it to include any form of abnormal development of the reproductive system, it would lose meaning and mislead readers because most of the social controversies would be irrelevant. alteripse 26 apr 04
 * You are right in that it does not fit the definition currently given; however, that definition is wrong as far as I know. Intersex covers all physical sexual characteristics that are not unambiguous, including chromomes, compare: Intersexual: adj 1: existing or occurring between the sexes 2: having sexual characteristics intermediate between those of male and female Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University. Turner is a borderline case, I usually find it listed among Intersex, but it does indeed not fit in very well. It would make sense to mention is since it usually is, but add that putting it under Intersex is somewhat questionable, because there is no ambiguity, but just something missing.
 * And I did not want to propose adding all forms of abnormal development, sorry, I was unclear. I meant all forms of abnormal development that lead to some form of intersex. There is probably a better technical term for that, but as I said, English is not my first language, and most of the information about intersex I get I get in German. -- AlexR 15:55, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

9. And a single X chromosome doesn't "inhibit" breast development. These girls don't have working ovaries to make estrogen. If they take estrogen their breasts grow.

10. Most children with Swyer syndrome are girls, and do not "retain an outward male appearance."

11. Mullerian inhibiting hormone is not made by the Y chromosome. The gene is on chromosome 19 but the hormone is made by the testes in fetal life. In older people, the gonads of both sexes can make it.

12. It is in the section on Treatment of Intersexuals by Society that this article really founders. Remember in the first paragraph how intersexuality is defined as anatomy that is in-between or of both sexes? The author proceeds to confuse anatomical intersex with people who live in cross-gender roles. Very fundamentally these are not the same thing.

13. I agree that presenting all aspects of the issues surrounding genital reconstructive surgery is difficult. However, if the author thinks he/she has done so may I remind him/her that the sentence, Corrective surgery is generally not necessary for protection of life or health, but purely for aesthetic or social purposes can be equally applied to cleft lip repair. My suspicion is that the author cannot imagine that the purposes of the two types of surgery and the training, motivations, and ideologies of the surgeons are identical. Instead actually discussing the reasons for the controversy, the author favors comparison with the lovely North African Muslim practice of cutting out the clitoris and sewing shut the vagina to ensure complete male control over a woman's sexual feelings and function. Where are the NPOV police when you really need them?

14. What's the socially accepted method here for cleaning up the medical and historical errors and providing a discussion of the social issues that actually gives the reader enough information to understand the controversy? alteripse on 4/5/04


 * In general, Be bold and edit mercilessly :) Make the article the best it can be! Dysprosia 09:31, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome. I'll see what I can do. Alteripse

---

I hear "intersex" a lot more often than "intersexual" from the intersex people I know. I think we should move the page. Intersexual sounds medical. In my experience, intersex is more what intersex people say in day to day life.--Sonjaaa 10:54, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * I knew only intersexual, intersex sounded rather awkward to me; also those intersex people I know call themseves intersexual. However, Google gets considerably more hits for intersex than for intersexual, so moving the page would probably a good idea. Just make sure to adapt the links, because there might be double redirects otherwise. -- AlexR 12:28, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

1. Intersex rather than intersexual is standard medical usage. I agree with changing the page title. I don't like articles in which people with differences are objectified by terms like "intersexual" as noun as if they were some sort of separate species, but I realize this is my own opinion.
 * I have always understood "intersexual" to be not a noun, but an adjective. But you are right, people should not be called "A whatever". Seems to be consensus in the Wikipedia, too. -- AlexR 01:30, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

2. I'm surprised to see the box on this page converting this topic into another LGB reference. The vast majority of people who fall into this category would not consider themselves LGB and many would find the suggestion that intersex is a subcategory of LGB somewhat ignorant if not offensive (and obviously taking it that way would offend some people too). I agree there is some overlapping relevance in a minority of intersex cases, but the box listing seems pretty insensitive (or at least overly PC) to me. Maybe we could make it a reference or link in a section addressing the orientation and overlap aspects (which do warrant coverage)?
 * This box - along with others - turns up in far too many articles; and many doubts its (their) usefulness as well as its accuracy. Putting a comment on the discussion page (Template:Lgbt) for that box seems not to generate much of a response, but is probably worth a try. Also, I put the matter on Wikipedia talk:Article series, and putting it on Requests for comment is probably not a bad idea, either. These boxes are, in my opinion, cancerous and, as in this case, often objectionable. BTW, I did include Intersex in the List of transgender-related topics, because it is related; hope that's OK and if you'd like, you could check whether it is OK the way it is presented. (Although there is not much presentation in a list anyway.) -- AlexR 01:30, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

3. This article needs lots of work because it is full of biological and historical errors (outlined above), and degenerates into an unbalanced, insensitve and ignorant POV polemic. Some of the POV is worth saving, with context and details. I was planning to work on it after I finished a couple of other articles but I don't think it's worth arguing about title, categorization, or links until it's got better content. alteripse 25 apr 04
 * Please do so, it does need work, but I am not much of an expert on the matter. -- AlexR 01:30, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Another general suggestion: Might it not be a good idea to sort the various syndroms after "chomosomal anomalies", "gonadal anomalies", "developmental anomalies" and "anatomical annomalies"? (Sorry if I used any non-PC terms here, English is not my first language; if I did, I did not do so intentionally.) It would probably make things a lot easier to understand for the average reader, especially since the practical experiece of a person with Klinefelters syndrome differ a lot from those of a person being born with ambiguous gentalia who gets infant surgery. Also, gender identity is not even mentioned, but it is certainly an issue for many intersex people. -- AlexR 01:30, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've cleared up some wording which otherwise would suggest the frequency of surgical intervention as around 1 in 100,000-to-200,000 rather than the 1-to-2 in 1000 suggested by the reference cited. -- Karada 18:33, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
 * You may have cleared up the wording, but not the accuracy. Anyone who thinks 1 or 2 babies out of every thousand born are referred for genital corrective surgery because of ambiguity has no business contributing to an article on this subject. In your defense, however, the whole article is so full of errors that you could put the sugar and spice theory of sexual differentiation in here, backed with enough self-righteousness and LGB boxes, and it wouldn't seem out of place. Alteripse 19:52, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I think you, Alteripse, are confused, Karada changed it to 1 in 100,000, from 1 in 1,000. However, Karada, did you cite a new source for your figure, and what discredits the old source? Hyacinth 20:19, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Am I misunderstanding his revision or are you? I did not change Karada's version. The only number I see mentioned is 0.1-0.2%, equal to 1 or 2 per 1000 births, and implying surgery is performed in a large share of this group. The percentage of newborn babies referred for evaluation of ambiguous genitalia is more like 1 in 5-10,000, and perhaps 1 in 10-20 of that group gets offered surgery. The true surgical "reassignments" everyone likes to feel indignant about are far rarer still.
 * Anne Fausto-Sterling is the cited source. She is an academic sociologist (or something like that) with an ideological mission: to grant a new form of victimhood to those who feel uncomfortable with the two sexes traditional to human society. She is best known for suggesting we start recognizing 5 sexes: herms, merms, etc. Idealogues are not reliable sources for medical practice statistics or in my opinion much of anything related to this topic. She had no direct access to data and appears to have extrapolated her statistics from the number of all babies born with any abnormalities of the reproductive system whatsoever, including simple undescended testes. The table linked to at the bottom of this Intersexual article is attributed to her and was apparently the source of these statistics for whoever wrote this paragraph in the first place. But if you know what the disorders listed really are, a quick look at the table reveals how simply dishonest it is: most of the conditions listed do not result in any assignment quandaries or reconstructive surgeries whatsover. They are listed out of ignorance or dishonesty because whoever compiled the table had an ideological axe to grind, and the author thought larger numbers make it a more impressive problem. I actually have a lot of respect for ISNA and think they are doing some worthwhile things, but they are a political organization which selects facts to support policy and you can respect the personal accounts and some of their arguments without taking their "facts" at face value. I'm sure this qualifies as a rant, but you seem interested enough in this topic that you ought to understand my complaint.
 * Now, if I am misunderstanding what Karada wrote, please explain and I will humbly retract my objection. As I promised above, I do plan to write a decent intersex article to replace this one I have criticized so much, so I probably should have let this pass without mention, but I am finishing a couple of others first. See sexual differentiation and androgen insensitivity syndrome and tell me if they seem accurate, intelligible, appropriately linked, and fairly represent various POV. Alteripse 22:33, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Might I point out that Fausto-Sterling has since rescinded and apologized for the five-sex theory, and that, regardless, she is relevant to the article, if only to be refuted. Hyacinth 07:36, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * It is hard for me to respect an academic with no stake and no experience in a complicated issue building a reputation by making foolish (no other word fits as well) recommendations based on false and/or misunderstood information and uncharitable, inaccurate assumptions about other people's motives and values. Her writings suggest she has a poor sense of the limits of her own expertise and knowledge, and most importantly, no accountability for the use or misuse of her opinions. If she needed feedback to realize her 5 sex proposal was ridiculous, how can you trust the next thing she publishes? Has she rescinded her statistical claims or spoken out about their misuse? She found a bandwagon to make her reputation with but her original ideas were foolish and exploitative and her non-foolish ideas are unoriginal. There's nothing there worth paying attention to. Lest you think I am being unduly harsh, read her books and read the refutation of her statistics and perspective on intersex by Leonard Sax in J Sex Research 39:174-9, 2002 entitled "How common is intersex? A response to Anne Fausto-Sterling." I gather you think this needs to be added into the article about her? I didn't think she was worth the effort, but maybe you are right. Alteripse 00:00, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

at the end of the day, lets just disregard what Chuck Colsen says - and others that say similar.

whatever sex a person is, they are a person, just like a black person is the same as a white person is the same an american is that same a a cambodian is the same as everbody else.

everyone has the same needs and wants, everybody has their own personality, favourite food, pet hates and anything else you can think of.

does it really matter if some one doesn't "fit" into a gender description at one point or another in their lives? no, because they are still a thinking, living human being like everyone else on this planet.

if people weren't so close-minded they might meet some really interesting people "out there"!

Selphie 15:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * A person is not a "they", but a one. And no, everyone has not.  It matters; everything matters, and your reason is non sequitur. lysdexia 11:34, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Uh, are you so unfamiliar with the singluar use of "they". It is quite common and very appropriate when talking about gender matter. Just do an internet search.-- AlexR 15:23, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

These things do not matter, well, they should not, becase if they didn't there wouldnt be racism, sexism, ageism, etc etc. And my conclusion does follow from the evidence, thank you very much, I think I'd know what I'm saying! Selphie 12:01, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) **

Just curiosity...
I'm not pretending to offend anyone. It's just a curiosity I believe many who doesn't know very much about this (as me) share. Don't even know if it corresponds to this ?phenomenom? or to another.

Can a human produce both sperm and ovulus? And if so, could him/her fecund him/herself? In a natural way or artificially...--euyyn 22:25, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your question is not offensive. True hermaphroditism, where both ovarian and testicular tissue are present in the same person, is quite rare, with less than 100 cases well-described in the medical literature. I am hesitant to say "never" but I could find no reports describing spermatogenesis in the testicular part of an ovotestis. While a structurally normal ovary is more common than a structurally normal testis in these people, the pattern of gonadotropin secretion is usually not normal enough to support follicular maturation. Functional testes and ovaries need different patterns of pituitary gonadotropin secretion to produce mature eggs and sperm. I know of no reports of this happening. Alteripse 01:03, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Small addendum to above: Braun KG, Kuhnle U. True hermaphroditism: geographical distribution, clinical findings, chromosomes and gonadal histology. Eur J Pediatr 153:2-10, 1994. This article notes 283 cases described between 1980 & 1992. Most had 46xx karyotype. Most common gonad was ovotestis. In only two of the 283 cases spermatogenesis appeared to have occurred in the testicular tissue. Ovarian tissue is more normal appearing. Ten of the 283 had pregnancies but only 1 had fathered a child.Alteripse 02:15, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Clarifying. Thanks =)--euyyn 09:34, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know the exact medical data, but I know a person who was raised as a man, married and fathered 3 or 4 children, all the while feeling not quite male, and actually mensturating. (S/he did transition, btw, later to a female gender role.) Anyway, doctors said that at least if he had recieved female hormones it may have been possible that he could have gotten pregnant. But then, since sperm production under female hormones tends to decrease or stop, "naturally" she could most likely not gotten herself pregnant. -- AlexR 13:41, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)