![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
'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.
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
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
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?
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.
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
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)
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.
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)?
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
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)
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)
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)
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) **
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
'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.
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
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
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?
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.
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
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)
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.
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)?
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
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)
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)
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)
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) **
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)