Talk:Intersex/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Intersexuality → Intersex — Terms ending in sexuality uaually refer to issues of sexual orientation or gender identity; many intersex people do not like 'intersexuality', preferring 'intersex', and 'intersex people' rather than 'intersexuals'; also for at least 20 years medical practice has been to refer to 'intersex' conditions rather than the 'intersexual' conditions and 'intersexuality' used in the 1960's, I propose that we move this article to 'intersex', that current redirect to here, and make 'intersexuality' a redirect instead. Mish (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• move - I think you said it all just right. We should, though, mention the change in terminology in the article, too. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as nominated. "Intersex" is not used as a noun as far as I can tell, which makes it an awkward title. Intersexuality seems to carry a clinical emphasis parallel to Homosexuality, Bisexuality, etc. which are distinct from gay community or the equivalent Intersex people. This would effectively alter the scope and focus of the article from a clinical study to a social issue. If that is the nominator's intent, maybe a split is a better solution. Ham Pastrami (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
• move - as proposer. The preceding comment illustrates the problem. The term is not used in the same manner as those he refers to, instead, the term 'intersex' is used clinically, such as in the most recent consensus statement by the relevant specialists: Hughes, I. A., Houk, C. and Ahmed, P. L. (2006) 'Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders', Archives of Disease in Childhood, 91, (7), pp. 554-63. Nowhere does 'intersexuality' feature as part of the nomenclature of intersex, rather a new nomenclature and taxonomy is proposed for clinical usage: Disorders of Sex Development. That article has already been created, and while I do not agree that this renaming should entail a split, as this article already contains details of both clinical and social applications, and the new article reflects the consensus position on nomenclature, the most appropriate way of managing this is to use the terminology that is usually used, and preferred by those to whom it applies here (i.e. intersex), and the terms preferred by clinicians there. We would not look to naming the key article on homosexuality 'sexual inversion', but we would expect to have an article that discussed it as an anachronism; so here, this needs to be 'intersex'; I am not opposed to an article that covers the anachronistic use of 'intersexuality', just as there is one on 'hermaphroditism' which details both the anachronistic use of that term's application to humans, as well as the way it is used by plant and lower animal biologists. Mish (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

  If the word itself -- intersexuality is not used at all in clinical study, then I can understand why you want to move it. However, intersex is still not a noun. In every example given thus far, it's been an adjective and I don't see how it would be used otherwise. So the proposal should be modified to include a noun, such as Intersex disorder, per the guideline WP:ADJECTIVE. I don't know if "disorder" is considered neutral, however. Again, the choice of word here determines the context of the article and my concern is that it not disrupt the intended scope of the article as written. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

  Disorder is considered pejorative by some - I am not seeing the problem with intersex (as phenomenon). For example, just a few academic book and journal special edition titles from the past few years include:

  Intersex in the Age of Ethics,

  Intersex: A Perilous Difference,

  Critical Intersex,

  Intersex and After

  Ethics and Intersex

  Intersex and Identity: The Contested Self

  Intersex

  Intersex (for lack of a better word)

  Fixing Sex: Intersex, Medical Authority, and Lived Experience

  Intersex: A Challenge for Human Right and Citizenship Rights

  etc...

• move - per nom. I'm not seeing an issue with this at all, but we should leave a note in the article explaining usage - Alison ^❤ 19:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Kallmann's syndrome

I am upset that Kallmann's syndrome is deleted from the Intersex page and I think that they bet put back because of the new research out their that places Kallmann's syndrome with the Intersex group and according to Accord Alliance, they place Kallmann's syndrome part of the Intersex community. The fact is Kallmann's syndrome is an intersex condition much like Klinefeltners Syndrome and should be included as well.

The fact is their are groups like OII who are going around and erasing Kallmann's syndrome from the Intersex page because they don't like one person. As for Mish, I think Mish just dosen't like the fact that the new science says that Kallmann's syndrome is an intersex condition and doesn't like the DSD.

Kallman's syndrome was removed (not by me), because the page it was sourced to at ISNA did not list it. If you wish to include intersex in that list, you need a source that states it is intersex, and then you need to find a way of presenting that list in a way that doesn't source it to ISNA, otherwise that is WP:SYNTH. Kallman's Syndrome being listed as a DSD does not make in intersex, that makes it a DSD. DSD and intersex are not synonymous, and lots of things are included in it which were never regarded as intersex per se, such as hypospadias. We have already seen hypospadias culled here because of this (not by me). To suggest that Kallmans is intersex on the basis that it is included as a DSD is also WP:SYNTH. By all means, improve the article on Disorders of Sex Development, but do not introduce innaccuracte and misleading information here. I have no concern whether males who are under-virlised are included in intersex or not, but their being included here as intersex has to be corroborated by reliable sources, and not using sythesis.

The Accord Alliance states this quite concisely when is says that DSD includes some conditions known as intersex: [1]. Mish (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Your source indicates "some conditions known as intersex". It does not link kallmann syndrome to intersex, your information is implied, not stated. Also, after searching the website and its glossary, there are a number of conditions listed, none of which are Kallmann's Syndrome. SandSan (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

That is what I was saying - 'including' and 'some' conditions known as intersex does not make DSD and intersex synonymous. Kallman's is referred to in the DSD handbooks, published by the DSD Consortium, but that does not make it intersex. It is listed in Methodology under DSD and related concerns, but it is not clear that it is a DSD even from that, only that it is either a DSD or a "related concern". Despite mentioning all forms of intersex, the Consensus Statement on DSD does not mention Kallman's once. NIH's Medline lists it as a Smell Disorder and under Hypogonadotropic hypogonadism - but not as a DSD. But, if you look at more recent work, like the update on DSD & genetics from 2009, while Hypogonadotropic hypogonadism is detailed, Kalman's is not mentioned, unlike various intersex conditions. Mish (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sumeria

The line: "From more than 4,000 years ago", seems to be a mislleading underestimate. That's like saying "before 2,000 BC". Sumerian civilization was a long way before 2,000 BC. Myrvin (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Terminology Confusion

• Revision to discussion* I read the discussion on the "Hermaphrodite" article. It seems the discussion of hermaphrodite verse Intersex applied to humans has been going on a while. It makes sense to link the part about hermaphrodite to the hermaphrodite article. However, it isn't made explicitly clear whether or not the term "hermaphrodite" applies to Intersex, as it is used in the History, but the term is only mentioned as being revised. This doesn't clarify whether or not the scientific idea of hermaphrodite applies to people. In older documentation "hermaphrodite" was used to mean intersex and some people still use the term as a sort of gender identity.

MaverickTea (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Although there are no definite reports on any true hermaphroditism in humans

NEJM: A True Hermaphrodite Chimera Resulting from Embryo Amalgamation after in Vitro Fertilization — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruwolf (talk • contribs) 11:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. I've reworded that first line to reflect this. The fact that this was an inadvertent lab-induced phenomenon kinda disqualifies it a bit, so I added the term "naturally occurring" - Alison ^❤ 02:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

English

This article reads like it was written by a non-native speaker. There are misspellings, incorrect conjugations, and misused homonyms. It needs cleanup. Wuapinmon (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Complications needs to be removed

It provides information that only addresses one condition - AIS - and therefore that info should be on that page's main page. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 17:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC))

• I disagree. There are plenty of complications that can be a direct result of a number of different intersex conditions. Testicular cancer is just one of the better known ones. There's the potentially fatal salt wastage associated with CAH for another, or the greatly increased risk of osteoporosis associated with other IS conditions. What actually needs to happen here is that the more well-known complications be documented, along with solid medical journal references. This is important stuff - Alison ^❤ 18:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Testicular cancer can happen to anyone and many intersex people will never get it. It's not something that is unique to intersex conditions. All of these complications are discussed on their separate pages. It's just a waste of space to be on the main page. (MurasakiSunshine (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC))

I tend to agree with Alison that the section on "Complications" should have more information on potential complications of intersex conditions rather than just deleting the section. - thanks, bonze blayk (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the others, the section needs improvement, not removal. - MishMich - Talk - 23:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi

I had to take a break for a few months. It is good to see the article has been looked after so well. For the record, I don't have an opinion on whether Kallman's is included or not. I am not overly concerned about the hypospadias image being deleted, although would prefer an alternative image of hypospadias be included. It was inserted in response to the intransigence over the infant genitalia autopsy image - which I do still feel needs to go. I think it a shame that the image of the hermaphroditic aspect of the deity was removed. It was located in the context of the text about historic aspects. Mish (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I notice somebody has inserted a WikiLink to the Accord Alliance. If that organisation has a link, then there should be a link to other organisations listed in the section, such as Organisation Intersex International. I am open about my interest in OII. Mish (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I am around again because somebody pointed out a problem with the page elsewhere. I have not been active in editing since I moved across the world, as I have been tied up, and then had a heart attack last November, which required a stent. I have to avoid raising my blood-pressure and heart-rate, so will be limiting my engagement with any controversy as much as possible.- MishMich - Talk - 23:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Image insertion

I see a new image of an intersex person's genitals has been inserted without any discussion. There have been long, heated, discussions about such material in the past. However, I have removed the image, so that the inserter can review those earlier discussions, and state their reasons for inserting the image here, so that we can review whether this would be appropriate, and whether it could even be a replacement for the other image that caused concern previously.

I also noticed that the link to the image of Hermaphroditus from the Louvre is broken, so I have removed the picture box.

This leaves the history section somewhat turgid and in need of images. If I get time, I'll see what I can find to lighten it up a bit, unless anybody has any other suggestions?- MishMich - Talk - 23:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm in agreement with this. We've been over and over this before here and have already reached agreement. Anyone who simply must see that pic, can just look here - Alison ^❤ 00:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Stop erasing Kallmann's syndrome

Stop Removing Kallmann's syndrome from the Intersex list. Kallmann's syndrome is an intersex condition and is recognized as an intersex condition by the DSD manual. I am fucking sick and tired of OII and their fucking gang removing Kallmann's syndrome from the intersex list. What they are doing amounts to what they fight for and that's totally wrong.

The more you erase Kallmann's syndrome, the more I will keep adding Kallmann's syndrome to the intersex list. I will keep adding Kallmann's syndrome to the intersex list and I will make sure that it stays their. So if anyone keeps erasing it, I will keep adding it and I will report you to the wikipedia staff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamododragoon (talk • contribs)

Not only are you edit warring to force us to include Kallman's as an intersex condition, despite there being no reliable sources which describe it as such, first you fail to WP:AGF in attributing to me motives that are not mine, and now you are uncivil and profane when asked politely to provide sources that demonstrate the validity of your assertion. This has nothing to do with OII, but my editing here, and this is a key priniciple laid down in the encyclopedia's guidelines (I am not concerned about preventing people from identifying as intersex if they have Kallman's - that is a different matter from stating something that cannot be veryfied here). I have warned you on your user page that you are in danger of being reported for edit warring, I have pointed out that threats are not tolerated here, and now you are being uncivil and using profane language. The next step for me will have to be to report you for these breaches of etiquette, and refusal to edit co-operatively in a way that uses discussion constructively in order to reach consensus. All you need to do is produce reliable sources that substantiate the accuracy of your claim, sources that deal directly with the matter and are not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. That would be more productive than starting an edit war. In the mean-time, please remove the entry yourself, as a sign of good-faith, until we can resolve this dispute. Mish (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked Kamododragoon for 2 days for edit-warring. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't really get why you guys are fighting about Kallmann's, it can cause micropenis. As it says on the Kallman's syndrome wiki page. Is that wrong too or something?--174.20.57.33 (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Because Kallmann syndrome is not an intersex condition. Find a reliable source - say, a medical journal - that says it is & then we'll talk. Micropenis does not automatically indicate an intersex condition and even then, it's pretty rare as an indication of Kallmann. The only place I see Kallmann conflated with IS right now, is someone's Wordpress blog - Alison ^❤ 02:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that some people in here who represent OII, don't like the idea of Kallmann's syndrome being classed as an intersex condition when the science is their such as this one, Kallmann Syndrome and the Link between Olfactory and Reproductive Development Elena I. Rugarli http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1288264/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamododragoon (talk • contribs) 18:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the issue is that the paper you mention says no such thing & I've read it through. It talks about Kallmann, hypogonadism and anosmia. Hypogonadism and/or micropenis doesn't automatically mean it's an IS condition - things like testicular dysgenesis can be the cause. In fact, KS is primarily known for anosmia, which is one of its diagnostic indicators - Alison ^❤ 19:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, there seems to be some weird political battle going on between yourself and the OII, whom I'm aware of. I've no idea what's behind all this, but let's try to focus on the scientific and medical aspects of this & maybe stay focused on the facts of the matter? - Alison ^❤ 19:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Kallmann's slipped in again somehow - this time as an 'unusual chromosomal condition'. As I understand it, it is either XY or XX, which are not unusual chromosomes at all. Hypogonadism seems to deal with Kallmann's in context, and I agree that Kallman's may be associated with hypogonadism, that doesn't mean Kallman's itself is intersex per se. Hypogonadism can lead to other signs of underdevelopment - which may or may not be seen as intersex, but just because something gives rise to things related to intersex, doesn't mean it is intersex (mumps, for example, gan give rise to hypogonadism, but mumps is not an intersex condition). I think Kallman's needs a mention in here somewhere, maybe within a small section about hypogonadism, that links to the main article, and in the context of other things things associated with hypogonadism, such as Klinefelters, cryptorchidism, mumps as well as Kallmann's - thereby locating hypogonadism in relation to intersex. I have asked User:James Cantor to comment? - MishMich - Talk - 19:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I am stating categorically that I am not a member of OII, I do not represent OII, and have had little to do with OII since leaving the UK over a year ago. - MishMich - Talk - 20:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Addendum. Declaration of renewed interest. I rejoined OII about 9 months ago, because I was asked to, and in part because of personal attacks made against me by the editor who started this thread (outside Wikipedia). I have made no major edits to this article during that time. I also had a heart-attack around that time, due to a 95% obstruction of the LAD artery (see Widow_Maker), which required a stent and medication; because of this any input into OII by me has been limited, and into Wikipedia my input has had to be restricted, in order to try and avoid unpleasant interactions. - MishMich - Talk - 11:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to see some sense prevailing here. Whatever kamododragoon thinks (whether he is posting under his username or anonymously - the spelling errors and writing style are a giveaway) he is very, very, wrong on this issue. Kallmann's is NOT intersex by any of the current or past definitions of intersex. There is no ambiguity of sex at birth or later. There is no chromosome error. Both externally and internally, the males are physically male and the females are physically female. There is nothing that is "inter". It is an endocrine disorder that delays or prevents the completion of a normal puberty. But with the appropriate treatment both males and females can develop as adults and become fertile, unless there is some other unrelated medical disorder. I have no idea why kamododragoon persists with this campaign to include Kallmann Syndrome as intersex, but it seems like a perverse form of attention seeking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.126.239 (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No mention of non-human animals

It appears that this article still contains no information about intersexuality in non-human animals. Jarble (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is about intersex (in humans), rather than intersexuality (in animals). I believe that there are plenty of articles that cover freemartinism, chimerism, gynandromorphism, and hermaphroditism already, so am unsure why it is necessary. - MishMich - Talk - 23:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, like I stated in this edit summary, there should be a hatnote pointing out that this article is about humans and to look at the Hermaphrodite article for other animals? I know that some scientists object to use of the word hermaphrodite for some intersex non-human animals, just like most scientists object to the term for humans, and that article does make this clear. Flyer22 (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense. - MishMich - Talk - 11:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Does turner syndrome belong here?

I wanted to bring up the inclusion of Turner Syndrome. Girls with turner syndrome are still considered girls by society at large. They don't have a Y chromosome, and have a female build, while Swyer Syndrome girls have XY chromosomes, which would make them intersex. ForestAngel (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Turner Syndrome is regularly regarded as an intersex condition. ISNA thought so, the APA thinks so, the NIH's 'genetic home reference' doesn't make any reference to intersex, Milton Diamond definitely agrees that it is and he is an expert. Also, Turner can also appear as an XO/XY mosaic. Lots of references and data, and most saying that it is, with the NIH seemingly silent on the matter - Alison ^❤ 05:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Added Non Klinefelter XXY

with a link to the new article just created and added. NIH has identified XXY female phenotype people and not all XXYs develop Klinefelter Syndrome. Many XXY people accept they are intersex and somewhere between the bibary of male and female.CAWilson52 (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Template and Portal

Does anyone else have a view on the "Sexual Identities" template link at the bottom of the page? I don't find it fits very well with the rest of the article, it's inconsistent and lacks relevance. It doesn't appear on many other articles in the Intersexuality category. Can it be removed?

Thinking a step further, is it maybe time for an Intersex template or portal? Nsw2042 (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)