Talk:Intersex/Archive 9

Reproduction
I'm very curious whether intersex persons can reproduce and would like to see something about it in this article. There are pictures (faked?) of such people with both a seemingly functioning penis and/or vagina. Example (graphical!): http://www.hermaphrodite-sex.com/ 94.222.229.175 (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It depends upon the intersex condition. Some intersex people are fertile and some are not.

2601:645:C300:16DD:DDFC:6F67:898E:DB1B (talk) 16:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I suspect the (graphical!!) link contains a lot of photo-editing based on sexual fantasies. Reproduction in intersexuality/DSD is mostly limited by dysgenetic gonads (which is already explained in the article if I'm correct); yet reproduction is described in several DSD-conditions such as Turner (mosaicism), partial androgen insentitivity syndrome and both 5-alphaRD/17-betaHSD. Chbse 05:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chbse (talk • contribs)

Self impregnation
I am curious about it. Is it even possible? Perhaps it is so rare that there aren't any records of it happening? I dont know, but I would like this to be clarified somewhere in the article. --63.231.230.218 (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Although some intersex people have both penis and uterus - most do not - there are no reports of any intersex person impregnating him/herself.
 * In cases where an intersex person does have a functioning uterus, and in likewise cases of non-intersex women, parthenogenesis might be possible. But there are no reported incidents of human parthenogenesis - aside from the virgin birth stories of Horace to Isis, of Jesus/Joshua to Mary/Miriam, and so on.  So, it is certainly a question that has fascinated us for quite a tidy while, but whether it is scientifically possible remains unknown.  To date, such research as has been done on the question suggests that human parthenogenesis is possible but does not produce viable embryos.

2601:645:C300:16DD:DDFC:6F67:898E:DB1B (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * From what I have learned in biology, I am fairly certain an intersexed person is infertile. Ryan Vesey (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Whether an intersex person is or is not fertile depends upon the specific intersex condition. Some are and some are not. 2601:645:C300:16DD:DDFC:6F67:898E:DB1B (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it's not possible. Almost all intersex conditions relate to ambiguous genitalia. It's extremely rare for an individual to have two sets of gonads - that's sometimes a characteristic of chimerism (46,XX/46,XY), or maybe ovotestis which isn't even both types of gonad but a kinda mix. But having both sets of functional gonads? Nope. For starters, there would massive hormonal issues involved. Secondly, there are often problems with even one set of functional gonads - A l is o n  ❤ 02:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone needs to find a source and put in this article that chances of infertility in Intersex is high. 119.224.27.62 (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * From a scientific, as opposed to moral or cultural, perspective, one of the reasons for using the term 'intersex' instead of 'hermaphrodite' when referring to a human is that there is simply no such thing as a hermaphroditic human, that is, a person who is capable of procreating with both males and females (or by themselves). - 124.191.144.209 (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Biological sex
Sex characteristics are phenotypic only (=primary sex characteristics and secondary sex characteristics). Genetic sex is genetic only. Biological sex is both (e.g., Biological sex). Also, it's the term that the source used when giving this definition, so we should be particularly cautious about changing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, User:WhatamIdoing, it's important to note that "sex characteristics" is a term increasingly used by human rights institutions and other bodies with a legal sense that differs from the narrow phenotypic definition that you are using. Examples include Maltese legislation and statements and analyses by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. This is why I was ok with the change made to use the term "characteristics" and why I cited the UN and other bodies in my edit summary. Trankuility (talk) 06:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We really shouldn't stray from the source. That statement isn't a statement about what people care about when it comes to intersex; it's a direct statement of what the definition of biological sex it.  If we start with "The definition of X is a, b, and c" and someone changes it to "The definition of Y is a, b, and c", then we have failed verification for the cited source and gotten it wrong, where "wrong" is determined by looking up the definitions of Y in the majority of reliable sources (remembering that the majority of reliable sources for sex characteristics aren't talking about intersex at all).  It'd also be confusing to anyone who puts sex characteristics into the search box, since sex characteristics quite correctly defines them as non-genetic traits.
 * I don't mind using "sex characteristics" throughout the rest of the article. I only mind attaching that term to a definition that was explicitly given for a different term.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

discrepancy in Intersex
How can the frequency of "Not XX and not XY", given as "one in 1,666 births", be lower than the frequency of "Klinefelter (XXY)", given as "one in 1,000 births"? Is the first row perhaps supposed to say "not XX, not XY, not XXY"? Otherwise, "XXY" is by definition "not XX and not XY" and hence "not XX and not XY" must be at least as common as "XXY". Is perhaps one of the figures erroneous, or are the two figures from two different (thus disagreeing) sources, which would be something that should be made clearer? -sche (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Appears to be from this site and the table in it. 1/1666 = 0.06%. That number excludes Klinefelter's and Turner's for some reason.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 18:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Aha; thanks for tracking that down! I've clarified that field in the table and added one for Turner syndrome. -sche (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem! Thanks for fixing it!  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 19:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the same structure that is used in this paper: Blackless, Melanie; Charuvastra, Anthony; Derryck, Amanda; Fausto-Sterling, Anne; Lauzanne, Karl; Lee, Ellen (March 2000). "How sexually dimorphic are we? Review and synthesis". Maybe this is a reasonable source to use. At least Fausto-Sterling is on of the prominent researchers on this topic. I have been trying to research these numbers for a chapter in my book, but I find a lot of sources citing very different numbers. Jadzia626 (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

XXY chromosomes
As far as I am aware, reliable sources tend to state that individuals with XXY are readily identifiable as male (or, in very rare cases, as female). In the absence of reliable sources to the contrary, classifying them as intersex is original research (and potentially offensive misclassification). I have retained the reference to abortion because people may falsely believe that they are aborting intersex foetuses.--greenrd (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * NO! Anyone who has a genotype other than XY-male or XX-female is intersex!  Intersex is NOT just a question of phenotype but of genotype, and of bio-psychological and socio-psychological factors!
 * Thus, if a person is XX-male, XY-female, or has genotypes X, XXX, XXXX, XXXXX, XXXXY, XXXYY, XXYY, XYYY, XYY, XXY, etc.; that person is intersex.


 * 2601:645:C300:16DD:DDFC:6F67:898E:DB1B (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Depends on definition (which is true of a lot of questions of how to define intersex.) A male with Klinefelter syndrome has both X and Y chromosomes; from a biological point of view, the Y makes them male. (And, for what little it's worth, the Klinefelter people I've known look male, act male, and identify as male; there are problems associated with the syndrome, but intersexuality doesn't seem to be a part.) 76.241.133.83 (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The Klinefelter Syndrome Association of the UK provides extensive information on physiological issues and matters of informed consent, themes that are detailed on this page. See here. Trankuility (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Human Rights section suggestion
I have a possibly-controvlersial suggestion. Since there is a main article Intersex human rights, I'd like to suggest cutting the Human rights section down just a list of topics. The purpose of this is to have readers go to that longer and more detailed article, rather than the short version in this article. 76.241.142.156 (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The same is also true of the medical section, which is replicated in Disorders of sex development. There's no harm in reducing the length of both, but this article is a popular page and provides a good overview of multiple different aspects. Trankuility (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe. I'm not sure that "disorders of sex development" is really a synonym for "medical treatment", whereas "Intersex Human rights" is an exact match for Intersex human rights. You might start with a "main" note under the "medical treatment" section.


 * I meant Intersex. Trankuility (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure that this change won't be reverted, but I decided, using the principle "Be bold" to try out the change. The text is now entirely links to the main article. Again, the idea here is to send readers to the more comprehensive article. 76.241.142.156 (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I now added a separate section on legal status, which seems to me to be a slightly different topic from human rights (although they are obviously related), and moved all the citations about legal status to this section. I put the section on Christiane Völling and other individual legal cases in as a subheading on this section.

(It would be useful to add a section "legal status" to the Intersex human rights article, but that's too daunting a task for me to think about right now. )76.241.142.156 (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * By 'legal status' what do you mean exactly? It seems to me that you mean legislative and judicial processes. I retained most of your bold changes, but added back an introduction to the human rights section that introduces it and makes it readable. That 'legal status' section you created contained a sequence of ~23 citations with no related context to allow users to differentiate between them. Similarly, 'legal status' conflates protections from discrimination, protection of bodily autonomy, and legal gender recognition in ways that don't allow readers to differentiate between those issues. Trankuility (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, by "legal status" I mean laws and courts. Possibly "Legal issues" would be a better heading title?
 * It does overlap to some extent with the "human rights" topic, since human rights may (or may not) be codified and enforced by laws and courts. But it also makes sense as a separate section, particularly if we redirect readers to the human rights article for understanding human rights issues.
 * I would have gone through the citations and tried to categorize them more thoroughly, but putting them in a section of legal issues is a start. 76.241.142.156 (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Changing the section name to 'Human rights and legal issues' seems to address this. In most countries, the UN human rights system has binding legal effect. The U.S. is an exception, for example: it is the only eligible country that has not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Trankuility (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If the main intent of the "Human rights" section is to direct the reader to the human rights article, it might be valuable to give legal issues its own separate heading.76.241.142.156 (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Legal and human rights issues are indivisible, not just here but also on the Intersex human rights page because of the way that laws and courts implement human rights. The Council of Europe report provides a useful structure to present the information. Some basic information on this page is useful on human rights and legal issues, just as it is on the 'intersex and society' issues, 'intersex conditions', and 'language' issues, which all also have links to main pages about those topics. This entire page is heading towards becoming an introductory, signposting page. Trankuility (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * "Human rights" and "Legal issues" overlap, but are not identical. 76.241.142.156 (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not what I said or implied. I said that they are indivisible. Each of the current sub-headings in the section relates to legislation or court cases, with the exception of 'access to information' Trankuility (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I think that this should be clarified by putting this in a separate section. The legal system may or may not codify, enforce, and give a legal recourse to, the human rights declarations. They are related, but not identical.  And the way in which the legal system acts to codify principles is important-- in fact, it is critically important.76.241.142.156 (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I would support some text making those distinctions in the lead paragraph in the section, but those distinctions primarily belong on the Intersex human rights page as it details that legislation and some legal cases. Duplicating a large part of the section by creating a separate section would be unhelpful and would lose a framework. Trankuility (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Your changes so far seek to explain the human rights system, which is redundant, and duplicate the existing material. Paragraph breaks in a single unified section would be more appropriate. Trankuility (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm going to merge the two separated sections again. As they stand, information on gender identity is unhelpfully split between two incomplete sections, "Civil Cases" excludes a Kenyan birth certificate case, and the "legal issues" material contains a Council of Europe report on human rights. I will ensure that your material on implementation of human rights in legislation and legal cases is retained. Trankuility (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing a poor source
I'm removing this:

The Council of Europe, in an explanatory memorandum to Resolution 1952 on Children's right to physical integrity, defines intersex as:

This source is wrong, which should perhaps not be very surprising, given politicians' weak track record on questions of science. I've highlighted the error, which is their claim that intersex status is purely anatomical, rather than (potentially) having a genetic component. According to this definition, a person with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome is not intersexed at all.

I propose that we use some WP:Editorial discretion to avoid promulgating their error. Also, political sources are not exactly the most appropriate sources for questions of science anyway, so perhaps we should give more emphasis to textbooks and scientific review articles than to legislative bodies anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Section break made due to comment being placed in the wrong section

 * I notice someone keeps removing Kallmann's syndrome from the Intersex links. That's erasing a community and a group of people. That's wrong and that need to be stopped. Who ever is erasing it needs to stop it or else I will report you to the wikipedia staff.


 * First, you should not be threatening other editors this way. Second, you should insert comments relating to ongoing discussions in the relevant section for that discussion - not in a section unrelated to that discussion.  It's removal from the list of conditions taken from the ISNA page was trivial - because it is not included in that list.  The other entry was tagged as requiring a source, and no source was forthcoming, so it was removed.  If you look at the discussion, it is clear that I went to some lengths to find a WP:RS for Kallman's as being listed among the intersex conditions or as a DSD (although it being listed as a DSD and from that inferring it is intersex would be WP:SYNTH).  I have been unable to establish this myself.  As the inserting editor, the onus is on you to provide a WP:RS for this that will be capable of standing against the sources that omit it (which are many).  If you continue to insert material that is unsourced and unverifiable, and may simply be your opinion - particularly if you engage in an edit war to try and force its entry - then you may find you are the one about whom administrators are notified.  There is no need to engage in this discussion here - it would be better if you did this in the section created for that purpose, as doing it in a different section can be taken as disruptive.

Editing needed to complete sentence/thought
The following text accompanies notes 110-113:

Intersex may be contrasted with transgender,[110] which describes the condition in which one's gender identity does not match one's assigned sex. The two are usually[110][111][112] Some people are both intersex and transgender.[113]

There is obviously text missing. Avocats (talk) 06:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, this is now fixed. On your edit re sterilization, the sources state removal of gonads. Trankuility (talk) 06:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Some editing needed in the History-section
What troubles me is the following sentence: "This suggestion was taken up by specialists in the UK during the 1960s, by both those who rejected Money's framework (then emerging from the USA),[30] and those who endorsed that approach.[31]" The mentioning of "Money's framework" comes out of the blue, as it has not been explicitly mentioned or explained earlier in the article. Only by searching the article for further references to Money did I find him/her in the sources. Otherwise it seems it's not touched upon (have not read the whole article yet, but found no other results when searching it for "Money").

I suggest for "Money's framework" to be (briefly) explained upstream of the aforementioned sentence.

(Also: I apologise for any mistakes my non-english brain might have made writing this) Jakobsdatter (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten the material, and WP:SPLIT much of the content to a new, and much more detailed Intersex in history article. I hope this helps. Trankuility (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

General quality issues
I turned to this article after reading about the Olympian Semenya. I found large parts of it reading like a somewhat-disorganized catalog of every mention of the term "intersex." It would be helpful if someone with the appropriate scientific background edited it. Avocats (talk) 06:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This is an increasingly large subject area and an overly large page, and some attempt has been made to WP:SPLIT content into more detailed pages on specific issues leaving this as an introductory page. Trankuility (talk) 03:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Additions on relationships to LGBT issues
There is discussion on two talk pages regarding reverted additions to this page on intersex and same sex attraction, and on brain structures. For information, those discussions are here: "Primary research on brain structures" and "Intersex". Trankuility (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed name change: Intersex surgery to Intersex and medicine
I have just made a suggested name change, from Intersex surgery to Intersex and medicine, per its eponymous Category:Intersex and medicine, to assist in a WP:SPLIT of some content from Intersex. More information: Talk:Intersex surgery. Thanks. Trankuility (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Conditions
The last sentence of this sub-section was opinionated. "During 2015, the Council of Europe,[42] the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights[124] and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights[125] have called for a review of medical classifications that unnecessarily medicalize intersex traits[42][124][125]" Either the entire discussion should be presented at this point, or the opinion should be removed. For now, I have transformed it into an opinion free sentence, but anyone who knows more about the discussion should look into this. Viviane Carstairs (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In my view, the wording was paraphrasing the conclusions ("opinion") of the cited institutions, and the deletion of that information unhelpfully begs a question: why do they call for a review of medical classifications? The reason why is directly relevant to a discussion on which conditions are intersex. I have rewritten the sentence, and the rewrite provides a link to more information, but I agree that more information is needed to clearly summarize the reasoning of those institutions. Trankuility (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)