Talk:Intersex

Edits for grammar, style and ambiguities

I made small edits to correct grammar (added the missing word "book"), correct style (made unified footnotes) and ambiguities (mentioned in the table, in a form of footnote, that the LOCAH is debated by Leonard Sax, as has been explained in detail in that section). It should not modify the meaning, but should add clarity and simplicity of understanding. Please review. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intersex&diff=1182732065&oldid=1182609954 --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 01:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

????

"A study published by Leonard Sax reports that this figure includes conditions such as late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia and XXY/Klinefelter syndrome which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex"

Clinicians generally do not use the term 'intersex', they use DSD. With that in mind, the focus on what "clinicians recognise as intersex" does not make sense.

Why does this article push the views of Sax so hard? 31.94.34.221 (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

You could as easily say why does it push the views of Anne Fausto-Sterling so much. I think the main issue here is whether people think a "high prevalence" (1.7%) or "low prevalence" (0.018%) is "right". And this seems driven by political agendas. 2001:8003:8024:B700:E82A:388B:A19B:E670 (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

PCOS?

Since when was PCOS considered an "intersex condition"???? The vast majority of those with PCOS do not consider themself intersex, and not even Anne Fausto-Sterling claimed that it is.

Furthermore, there are no sources that back up the "PCOS is an intersex condition" claim 2d32d23ff322 (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

You are correct (given "sources" here meaning WP:MEDRS, as is required). [1] Thank you for drawing attention to this. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2024

In Judaism, the Talmud discusses many categories of intersex people in Jewish law, with emphasis on the androgynous, who exhibit both male and female external sexual organs, and the tumtum, who exhibit neither. The other categories that the Talmud mentions are the aylonit, who are assigned female at birth but later reveal male characteristics, and the saris, who are assigned male at birth but later reveal female characteristics. These categories are furthermore classified by hamah, natural causes, or adam, human intervention.

<ref>Dzmura, Noach. Balancing on the Mechitza: Transgender in Jewish Community. North Atlantic Books, 2010./ref> Karirig (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 17:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

How is this page relevant to the series of LGBT topics?

Just noted this page says it is part of a series on LGBT topics, as noted in the sidebar on the article. But how is the range of intersex medical conditiosn related to LGBT topics? Particularly as most LGBT supporters tend to say it is not an illness to be gay etc, it seems a bit unusual to link a page about a series of medical conditions to that social movement. 203.214.45.122 (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Intersex people have largely been marginalized throughout history because of our bodies' natural deviation from what society thinks the body of a man or woman 'should be'. Because of this, our history is not only pretty intertwined with lgbtqia history but many (myself included) of us consider ourselves part of the community for being intersex. Besides, yes intersex variations are medical conditions but they're medical conditions that result in discrimination and harm against us as a result of them. Intersex rights movements are obviously therefore to a large part social movements, because of the discrimination we've faced, both historically and in modern times, for being intersex. Medical abuse and contempt and social discrimination against intersex people aren't symptoms of being intersex, they're a social response to the actual symptoms that make us intersex. We are also, as a population, more likely to be non-heterosexual or transgender than the general population, and many harmful medical procedures etc. conducted against us were explicitly conducted with one of the goals being 'preventing homosexuality'. There's definitely issues with how the broader lgbtqia community sometimes treats intersex people, but it doesn't mean that we don't belong. We've always belonged. The wikipedia article Intersex and LGBT might be worth looking through as well as some information from the intersex advocacy organization InterACT. Despondentmeows (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

That said, not all intersex people identify as being part of the LGBT community, whether the "I" is tacked on or not - Alison ^talk 23:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

That is true, but (and this is based more on my own subjective opinions to be clear) it’s generally better in my experience to include the I and have people sort of opt out and say that they don’t consider their being intersex to be lgbtq rather than assuming the opposite and have it be an individual opt in of sorts. I think this approach makes it far better and easier to build community and solidarity and to help make it so that the broader lgbtq community is more aware of intersex issues and standing in solidarity with us. Again, this is mostly my entirely subjective opinion as to the community, and so while I believe it to be true and the right approach it doesn’t belong as an argument made by the Wikipedia article (though I do think that articles such as Intersex and LGBT should include mentions of those and similar perspectives coming from intersex advocacy groups).

That said, I do think that connection is enough that the article belongs on and should remain a part of the series on lgbtq topics. Even from a neutral perspective, I can’t see why there wouldn’t be enough justification for its inclusion. Despondentmeows (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

IMO, there needs to be a differentiation between the medical/genetic/scientific discussion of this topic and the sociological and identitarian discussion. I humbly suggest splitting this into two articles if possible. There is a vast gap between the empirical/observational/positivist description of this topic and the socio-psychological sense-making description. 98.166.226.214 (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't particularly agree, given that this article is a more broad overview of the term and associated concepts. There are plenty of more specific pages related to intersex topics on wikipedia, many of which are linked in the article. I don't think that the goal should be to get this page to be most specific and detailed article possible, but for pages such as this one, where it serves mostly as an overview of the topic, I think it's a good thing that it covers a less specialized range of topics in a broader sense to give a more complete picture of the topic. It wouldn't make sense in my opinion for a general encyclopedic entry on this term to only focus on one side of the term or to split up related information when it makes sense to have a broader summary in one place with links to more specific articles if needed. As an analogy, while I think we can all agree that topics such as the natural geography in Canada is not the same thing as, say, the governmental structure, but they're both very relevant to an understanding of Canada as a whole, and it wouldn't make sense to delete both sections in the broader article on Canada and instead rely on more specific articles to communicate that information. If people want to learn more about the scientific processes of sex differentiation in humans, there's an article for that. If people want to learn more about the social history of intersex people, sure, there's also more specific articles that can help with that. However, deleting these topics from the Intersex article wouldn't make sense because while they are distinct, in this case they share a common link to the topic of this article in general and so at least deserve to be touched on if not given a brief summary on how it relates to the topic of intersex. Sure, they may belong in different subsections of the article, I don't think anyone would argue that, though in my opinion this article already does this, it serves to better organize the article, but I think it would do the article a disservice to cut that information from it entirely. Despondentmeows (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we don't want to create a WP:POVFORK when intersex is, broadly, a single topic. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)