Talk:Intersex/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions about Intersex. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

On the existence of hermaphrodites in humans,

Regarding this the person cited there is a biologist with a PhD.

From a biological perspective humans aren’t hermaphrodites. Humans are mammals.

Mammals are gonochoric. Source here.

This source right here. States that mammals and birds are solely gonochoric.

Also you mention about doctors in the nineteenth century, yet the nineteenth century was about 200 years ago. Ideas change.CycoMa (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

If this is aimed at me, I recommend you read the book on the subject. Reis, Elizabeth (2009). Bodies in Doubt: an American History of Intersex. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-9155-7. You could also read books on the subject by Alice Dreger or Geertje Mak. Trankuility (talk) 05:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, you have so far made 64 edits to the page True hermaphroditism, so it is not clear what your point is? Trankuility (talk) 05:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Trankuility: I am basically saying from a biological perspective humans can’t be hermaphrodites. No one had an issue with me citing biologists and defining hermaphrodite from a biological perspective so I don’t understand why you have an issue with that earlier edit.CycoMa (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

If you're writing about the relevance of the term hermaphrodite in a new place on this page, then consider how the lead, terminology and history sections already describe how the term has been used. Your edit made the text internally contradictory. And the issue is already covered adequately in the terminology section, with a link to the page Hermaphrodite. Trankuility (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Do forgive me if I’m coming off as ignorant but, I’m not entirely sure how it came off as contradictory.

The article has said multiple times that the term hermaphrodite is no longer used on people with intersex conditions due to the fact it is stigmatizing and change in understanding on the topic.

I just thought it would be a good idea to add a source from biologists that made it very clear that humans can’t be hermaphrodites. Also I will state this I’m entirely sure you can rely exclusively on medical or social sciences on the topic of hermaphrodites. Like I have read claims by sociologists that went against what biologists thought of a certain topic, which is why I did this.CycoMa (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

That change was helpful but I don't think your citation of a single biologist is useful. It is WP:UNDUE and needs careful explanation. Trankuility (talk) 06:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

That’s fair but, he’s not the only biologist who thinks that. I have seen about 4 books written by biologists who think that. And many biologists have stated humans are gonochoric. So it’s not like he’s the only one.CycoMa (talk) 06:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that humans cannot be hermaphrodites in the sense used by biologists is a simple fact and is part of why that term has stopped being used. 19th century ideas have nothing to do with this. Trankuility, I don't know what CycoMa's 64 edits to that page have to do with anything. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no obvious constraint on human biology that human hermaphrodites *cannot* exist, they simply are not known to exist empirically. I recall that there is a case report about potential auto-fertility but none are highly cited or terribly credible.Maneesh (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

IGM ban map

Can we remove the IGM ban map, it's outdated? Prcc27 (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

What makes you think that? CycoMa (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide sources for your claims? CycoMa (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Tamil Nadu, India and Germany have bans on IGM, not reflected on this map. There may be more missing.[1][2] Prcc27 (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The map can (and should) be updated, and not removed. Trankuility (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I've already reached out to user(s) in the past to update the map, and they did not do so. So, until the map is updated, I feel like it isn't useful for inclusion in this page. Prcc27 (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Suspecting original research

In the line that says.

“ Research in the late 20th century led to a growing medical consensus that diverse intersex bodies are normal, but relatively rare, forms of human biology.[9][184][185][186]”

I checked two of the sources and they never said that intersex was normal. I can’t say about the other two since I can’t access them. Also they don’t say anything about consensus.

I’m not sure if I misread something in those sources to be honest. CycoMa (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Which two did you check? That sentence also stands out to me as suspicious. These are also called disorders of sex development, so the conditions really aren't medically "normal", as in being an evolved function. I'm sure there's agreement such conditions shouldn't be socially treated as "deviant" (against social norms), but that's different. The conditions are also outliers from the statistical norm. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads not to mention there isn’t even an agreement on what counts as intersex.

Like is it claiming Turner syndrome is normal. Of you look the Wikipedia on Turner syndrome you can tell why it’s clearly not normal.

These statistics didn’t come from nowhere.

”Approximately 99 percent of fetuses with Turner syndrome spontaneously terminate during the first trimester.[61] Turner syndrome accounts for about 10 percent of the total number of spontaneous abortions in the United States.[26]”

I can’t remember which sources I saw to be honest, since this comment was made yesterday and there is a lot of stuff in those sources.

But, anyway I think those sources need a closer analysis.

CycoMa (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is exclusive to humans

I keep seeing articles on biology linking to this article, the problem is that these biology articles definition of intersex is different from biological definition of intersex.

So here’s some ideas idea for this.

We change the title of this article to some like.

“Intersex (humans)”

Change the article to make it include information for various species.

Or we could make another article another intersex but for a biological perspective.

Which option sounds best?CycoMa (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

If Intersex conditions in wider biology aren't already covered by another article, then this sounds like a good idea - it narrows the article's focus and avoids confusion between intersex conditions in humans and intersex conditions in animals.

I'd definitely check to see if it's not already covered elsewhere first, but even if it wasn't, I'd still support renaming the article to "Intersex (human biology)" or the like. -- Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Ineffablebookkeeper I was thinking about making an article for it, but I’m concerned that it may be taken down for content forking.

Also it’s not easy to find sources for intersex from a more biological perspective.CycoMa (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

sorry grammar, what I met to say was maybe I should remove those links entirely because they don’t add much to those other articles.CycoMa (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Which links do you mean? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Well the editors on sex removed the link to this article because this article is exclusively to humans.CycoMa (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

You could add content about other species here and then propose a split once it's clear there's enough content. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Maybe a section for animals will do for the mean time.CycoMa (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's the solution. Renaming this article and/or starting a different one isn't necessary per WP:CFORK. And this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so if a section on animals did get too big and had to be split off, it would be under something like "Intersex in animals". Crossroads ^-talk- 05:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Rgarding biology section

The reason I'm making a biology section is that the information here kind of goes against what mainstream biology says on the topic. Language like Intersex people are individuals born with any of several variations in sex characteristics including chromosomes, gonads, sex hormones or genitals that, according to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies". Isn't what mainstream biology sources say on the matter. Also, a lot of biology article links here.

So for the moment, I'm gonna add a lot of biology sources to that section and maybe one day turn it into a separate article.CycoMa (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

If anyone opposes me creating that section just comment stuff down here.CycoMa (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the definition of hermaphrodite should be removed

Here’s the thing about the definition of hermaphrodite. It’s definition varies depending on source or context. Like the definition of a hermaphrodite being a organism producing both gametes is for the most part merely a simplistic definition. Like notice the definition presented at hermaphrodite. In reproductive biology, a hermaphrodite (/hɜːrˈmæfrədaɪt/) is an organism that has both kinds of reproductive organs and can produce both gametes associated with male and female sexes.[1][2][3]

Not to mention it’s definition presented here has brought some confusing and sources contradicting each other. Like it’s weird there are reliable sources saying humans can’t be hermaphrodites. Plus the definition of hermaphrodite is just straight up out of place here I’m general.CycoMa (talk) 05:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

There's a history of using hermaphrodite or derivative terms to describe what we would now call intersex individuals. I don't think the article would be better without mentioning that history, and explaining how hermaphroditism, as it's come to be defined, is no longer a useful term for describing intersex conditions. There's not a drastic difference between the gamete definition and the gamete+organs definition, as in almost all cases gametes are produced by reproductive organs. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Here’s the thing tho, y’all are assuming it’s simple but in reality it isn’t. In that earlier discussion I shown how definitions of hermaphrodite vary in reliable sources. Y’all are relying a very simplistic definition of something.

Look there are tons of reliable sources saying humans can’t be hermaphrodites both medical and biological sources would say this. So it doesn’t matter whether or not something fits a definition, what matters is whether or not scholars think something is classified as something. Even if definitions are inconsistent.CycoMa (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Like sources on sex and gender vary in there definitions on the matter.CycoMa (talk) 06:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Like it appears y’all aren’t understanding what I’m trying to get at right here.CycoMa (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Y’all are combing sources to come to a outlandish conclusion on a matter.CycoMa (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think any of us are interested in restarting the conversation about human hermaphroditism, so I'm asking you to please drop it. Is this a separate conversation, or just a way of restarting the above discussion? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay fine, I guess what is currently presented on the article is fine for the meantime.CycoMa (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

That's the spirit. Learning to live with some things and knowing they're not worth spending the time disputing is a good thing. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure but, it’s very obvious there isn’t much agreement regarding this topic. I’m gonna try to do tons of research on this. So don’t be surprised everything is gonna remain.

I guess I should wait until the day scientists reclassify humans are trioecous.(which is unlikely.)CycoMa (talk) 05:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

If I find more reliable sources that directly say humans can’t be hermaphrodites I’m gonna put it in. But right now the article is fine.CycoMa (talk) 05:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

You won't find any reliable ones that say that my friend. Universal negatives like that in biology are generally not provable unless they obviously violate a physical law. Biological organisms are too complex and there is too much variation to make those kind of statements. When you consider the strange sorts of events we attribute many evolutionary events to, you realize it is quite dangerous to say things like "can't". Maneesh (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Maneesh not entirely sure about that logic. There are sources that will probably say humans can’t grow wings.

Also I understand why you say I wouldn’t find any. I found about 3 that directly say it, unfortunately 2 of them were made more than 70 years ago and the one I added in 2009 was removed by you. Although I don’t mind you removing it to be honest.CycoMa (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The entire History section has serious issues

They are pretty obvious. Just start with "From early history, societies have been aware of intersex people. Some of the earliest evidence is found in mythology...". There is no clear link between instances mythological androgyny and "intersex" as a class of people other than superficial analogy. None of the conditions match, no scholar suggests that mythological androgyny was inspired by any intersex condition. There are, no doubt, ancient accounts of atypical genitalia but you would need a serious medical history source that was able to credibly link those accounts to our present day understanding of these conditions. I do not see such a source in the first paragraph. You would also need to make clear that the ancient understanding of 'hermaphrodites' is almost certainly incorrect with respect to our modern biological understanding of intersex conditions. The whole section seems to have some OR and unwarranted commentary on a vague notion of 'gender (e.g., the mention of hijra which reliable sources have explicitly disconnected to intersex conditions). Maneesh (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

i can be blamed for a chunk of that section, it is definitely not my best contribution and i forget where much of it came from. I am happy for it to be overhauled and vastly improved. Certainly looking at it the "Hijra communities, may include intersex people in a third gender category", though referenced (it does not say Hijra are intersex but some can be) is weak and might confuse readers, I think I was trying to keep Wikipedia international and avoid a western bias but it can go.

The reference CycoMa highlights above Setting Aside the Loom: Hermaphroditism in AncientMedicine (free version) better citation found here^[1] might help improve the earliest history part. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Cheers. That source only mentions intersex in one footnote. There is a lot of difficult to interpret thought/observations from ancient Greek philosophers/medicinal texts. It does seem to talk about some history of more common conditions including CAH and hypospadias. That material can probably worked in. Not sure how much outside of that. Maneesh (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

References:

^ Lisa Peterman; Kerry Sun; Frank W. Stahnisch (8 December 2011). The Proceedings of the 18th Annual History of Medicine Days Conference 2009: The University of Calgary Faculty of Medicine, Alberta, Canada. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 247–. ISBN 978-1-4438-3594-7.

the history section does appear to be relying more on a sociological perspective to be honest. Like I’m not entirely sure Morgan Holmes is a good source for history. There are other two historians cited in that section and they clearly have agenda in mind. CycoMa (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe I have seen more sources on this topic. So I’ll try to find if there are other sources out there. (Or at least find ones that are less partisan) CycoMa (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Come to think of it all the intersex history articles are problematic.CycoMa (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: - I'm sure I've brought this up before, but I'd be surprised that being intersex wouldn't be considered a sociological issue as well as a medical and historical one. There are a fair few references to those who don't fit either 'male' or 'female' as a category in history, for whatever reason, but if all you're looking for is medical sources, you may well struggle. Though my speciality isn't medicine, I don't think I'd be alone in guessing that a sociological perspective would be just as valuable for the history section, seeing as gender and sex are both societal issues, as well as medical ones?

For instance in this diff, you bring up that it's a claim made by sociologists, not biologists. Though it's not part of the History section, would it not be the most accurate and useful approach to the History section, to go at it with the angle of "[numerous/some/many] sociologists [and historians] [claim, possibly a better word than this] that intersex people are [represented?] throughout history, citing instances of [insert instances here - mythology, religious texts, etc] as evidence of historical cultures holding awareness of [people of variant gender and/or sex]"?

This article is, I have to point out, categorised as falling under "Sexology and sexuality articles" as well as "Sociology articles" and "Gender studies articles", alongside "Medical articles". I think approaching the History section from a purely biology approach, and shirking sociological perspectives entirely, would, therefore, be categorically the wrong approach, as it would technically be pretending this article doesn't fall under all those categories. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ineffablebookkeeper: regarding this diff. I removed it because it was talking about biology yet I haven’t seen any sources from the biological sources say that.CycoMa (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ineffablebookkeeper: Also I get that this article is mainly about sociology and medical. But the issue with the history side is that there isn’t much regarding the medical history.

Also the history section mentions third genders in other cultures like in Hawaii. But, I’m not entirely sure about the claim regarding intersex in ancient Hawaii. Since the only source that claims this is Morgan Holmes, I couldn’t find any other sources on what ancient Hawaiians viewed intersex.

Also I have noticed that articles talking intersex history mention mythological intersex, and I think someone mentioned that it’s likely that most mythological intersex/hermaphrodites were not based on any real life conditions. And I haven’t seen any scholars claims that. Also not to mention the ancient’s view of intersex is a lot different than our modern understanding.

Also I should mention this the social sciences in general are pretty well known for being political and biased, so yeah.

Also another thing is that there isn’t an agreement on what counts as intersex, so it’s hard to tell if these individuals are talking individuals with a mixture of sex characteristics or are they talking about another sex disorder.CycoMa (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

While sociological and historians' sources can be used for history sections, it's important to be careful to stick to sources talking about intersex, specifically, and not conflate that with third genders, mythological androgynous beings that have nothing to do with intersex, and so in. There are also often many disagreements among historians, so inadvertent cherry-picking needs to be watched out for. Regarding "the social sciences in general" having political or other bias, the social sciences are large and very methodologically diverse. The principles at WP:SOURCETYPES and the WP:SCIRS essay steer us away from obscure papers as well as primary sources, where poor or slanted research is more of a problem. Review articles, and clearly very mainstream works, are the best ones to use. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

All I am trying to say is that the history section should have sources that are less political.

Morgan Holmes is an activist for intersex rights. And she is not a historian. Morgan Carpenter is a bioethicist and an activist for intersex rights. Mauro Cabral Grinspan is a historian but he is also an activist. Alice Dreger is a historian but she also an activist. Gopi Shankar Madurai is an intersex activist. Leah DeVun is a historian but she is also an activist. Juan E. Méndez he is an activist.

Most if not all the sources in the history section are sources written by individuals with an agenda. I’m not saying we should discredit these people. I’m saying that section needs more sources from individuals that aren’t trying to push an agenda. Like it’s hard to tell if all there claims are legit because I have seen sources that tell a different narrative.

That’s why I marked that section as “ This section relies excessively on partisan sources.” CycoMa (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the scare quotes on the history section. It turns out the the user who added them is concerned about creation myths. This is quite the cognitive dissonance from someone who has so far made 64 edits to the page True hermaphroditism. Trankuility (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Trankuility: It wasn’t just creation myths, I am sorry that I didn’t explain further in detail about the issues. I’m saying that history section does have some issues that do seem legit. Like look at my other comments on this above. I have said before many of the individuals cited in the history section are all activists Wikipedia isn’t a place to promote some political agenda.

Read on wp:NOTADVOCACY. I’m not saying we should discredit them. All I am saying is that section should have sources from a less political perspective. In the earlier comment before this one I provided sources on intersex history.

Plus I am not the only individual who brought up issues with the history section.CycoMa (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I deleted the problematic paras and now they are reverted back. Please post your consensus. The deleted paras have virtually nothing to do with intersex as I described at the top of this section. Maneesh (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the section should be overhauled and vastly improved, not removed, and I don't think mass deletion is the most promising route to improvement. That's all. Newimpartial (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Another problem is that the Leonard Sax definition has been constantly edited out of the Wiki, plus any discussion of Sax has been constantly edited out of this Talk page. The 0.018% number in the second paragraph can only be calculated by using Sax's definition of intersex. The 1.7% will only come about by using the Anne Fausto-Sterling definition. Therefore both the Sax and Fausto-Sterling definitions need to be included in order to show where these 2 different numbers come from. The UN definition congruent with the Fausto-Sterling definition. Leveni (talk) 02:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Just seeing if attention can be put here again. The first three paragraphs need to be deleted. Naturally, it would require considerably scholarly effort to make a compelling case to link ancient accounts to modern conditions, none of the cited sources do that. Some of the sources are obviously not relevant to intersex, of the ones that need to be read: just a few non-relevant mentions of intersex, none here (this is about eunuchs). This writes a lot of stuff about intersex without using the term...but don't know what it is supposed to support. Dreger's writing is probably a sensible starting point for history in terms of scholarly sources. Her accounts begin in the 1800s, which makes lines up with intuition. There is no doubt that intersex conditions existed long before the 1800s but nearly impossible to link them to what we understand today which would be very difficult to do given their low prevalence, I am not aware of any scholar that has (especially given the fluid nature of the term "intersex"). Maneesh (talk) 04:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Now there are claims about "gender affirmation" surgery not used by the source. The source uses "repair" and "correction" which itself needs to be framed very carefully in this article if it used (compare against the stance of intersex advocacy groups). The source is odd, it's a differential diagnosis based on a paragraph of an ancient account (that took 11 authors?). If this source is used, it needs to be presented with language that looks like "Ancient case accounts involving genital surgery have been interpreted by contemporary scholars as occurrences of intersex conditions as we know them today."Maneesh (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

[PetermanSun2011-1] Lisa Peterman; Kerry Sun; Frank W. Stahnisch (8 December 2011). The Proceedings of the 18th Annual History of Medicine Days Conference 2009: The University of Calgary Faculty of Medicine, Alberta, Canada. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 247–. ISBN 978-1-4438-3594-7.

[1]