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 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
I have an issue with this definition of intersex Intersex people are individuals born with any of several sex characteristics including chromosome patterns, gonads, or genitals that, according to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit typical binary notions of male or female bodies".
Although I am aware that the UN is reliable and all that. That definition of intersex acts like that is the only definition of intersex and isn't controversial. Here's the reality many of the sources on this topic mention there is indeed controversy on what classifies as intersex.
I mean come on the lead even says this The number of births where the baby is intersex has been reported differently depending on who reports and which definition of intersex is used. Anne Fausto-Sterling and her co-authors suggest that the prevalence of ″nondimorphic sexual development″ might be as high as 1.7%.[10][11] Leonard Sax says that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, and that in those ″conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female", the prevalence of intersex is about 0.018%. CycoMa ( talk) 03:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Crossroads: what do you think? CycoMa ( talk) 03:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm just seeing this and had a simple issue with the word notions defined as beliefs. Don't even think about the fact the citation 1 and 2 deal with torture of individuals. The entire intro is political and the sources don't match the intent. Any attempt to clarify anything in the intro is going to be met with stiff resistance and a moderator with banning permission abusing the privilege. The entire intro is BS copy and paste hack and the sources cited relate to human rights violation and have nothing to do with the intro. This wiki page should be a work in progress. They might as well lock it except for the few people that think they own it. Stjoan1 ( talk) 18:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
How about just fixing it. I tried without going into the BS citations on human rights violations and got banned as a result. Activists need to be nonbias and not aggressive over clarifying a word to make it easier to contemplate the intent of the original author. You can't tell me there are not better sources out there that are based on science and not a description from the UN bureaucracy that has no sources of their own. Go ahead, try to fix the intro and check out the lack of simple core values you will be met with. Stjoan1 ( talk) 16:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I will also add that the owners of this page need a lot of clarification throughout if they want people to buy in rather than serve as a political platform. We all know this is a hot topic so it needs to be based on facts and not unverified popular beliefs that have gone viral. If it is not in a dictionary or a real encyclopedia than Wikipedia needs qualified people to create a page to beat dictionary and actual professional encyclopedia writers to the punch according to their own professional generally accepted research practices. The only thing, because of the intro, this page is good for is a source for a daily Google Doodle. You all can have this hack page and eat it too. It will avail you nothing. Stjoan1 ( talk) 16:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Example. Read the entire page. https://www.britannica.com/science/intersex
Stjoan1 ( talk) 16:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Read the entire page. The whole thing keep scrolling down for crying out loud. Stjoan1 ( talk) 17:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Also, just reading the opening it includes mammals. A human is a mammal. This proves we are not qualified to even have this page on Wikipedia. We're obviously not qualified. Stjoan1 ( talk) 17:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
And why do we have a page on Intersex devoted only to humans. It is not unique to humans. Just keep digging proving my point that this page is a hack that is carefully guarded. Stjoan1 ( talk) 17:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
And as we can see from the user that started this talk that even logical reasons for the intro question are going to be ignored. You want a page for a Google Doodle than you got one. Stjoan1 ( talk) 17:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
And by the way banned and barred are synonymous. Another reason the guardians of this page couldn't write their way out of a wet paper sack. I'm using Britannica as an example of the bar we need to exceed. We just don't have the resources because this page is locked down for further discussion or edit. An appearance of a conflict of interest is a conflict of interest and the way this page is being managed is full of conflicts of interests mainly in the form of being one sided. At the very least the guards of this page need a controversy section that is unbiased if you continue to keep it locked from anybody that sees a need for clarification. If this is a human rights page than title it as such and I'm fine with that but the title for now is Intersex and the intro is incorrect that was logically pointed out and ignored by the OP. Stjoan1 ( talk) 18:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Bans are different from blocks, which are used by administrators to technically prevent a user account or IP address from editing Wikipedia. Blocks are used chiefly to deal with immediate problems such as vandalism, disruptive editing or edit warring. A ban, on the other hand, does not technically prevent editing; however, blocks may be used to enforce bans.
intersex, in biology, an organism having physical characteristics intermediate between a true male and a true female of its species. The condition usually results from extra chromosomes or a hormonal abnormality during embryological development. The sex mosaic, or gynandromorph, is an intersexual organism that has male parts on one side of the body and female parts on the other. Arthropods, mammals, and birds have been known to be gynandromorphic.
The result of the move request was: no consensus, thus not moved. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 12:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
– I was surprised to find that
Intersex was the article about humans, and it seems a very easy issue to fix. Moving here provides easy opportunity for avoiding parenthetical disambiguation with a less surprising title (
WP:PLA). I note that
Intersex already begins with Intersex people are individuals…
, so it is likely to be the most natural way to title the article about humans. —
HTGS (
talk) 00:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC) — Relisted.
P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.
put'er there
00:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Intersex people, and not intersex as a condition. (See also: List of intersex people, Intersex people in history, Intersex people and religion, etc.) In fact, the wording we use—intersex, and not intersexual, intersexuality or intersexism—means that in most (not all) usage around people, we are using the word as an adjective. Further, this article already emphasizes the social aspects more than the biological, which is why I didn’t propose Intersex in humans to try to make this a sub-set / secondary topic to the biology article.
Renaming in this way will break a great many links that formerly went here. Please see Cleaning up after a change in topic structure. It is a job, but not a terribly complicated one, to shift link targets. I personally will do that work myself if necessary.
Having recently read the Wiki article Intersex, I elected to edit the phrase "sex assignment" as an individual's sex is not assigned to them, i.e. no-one gives it to me, but is a product of fertilisation. The use of the term "assignment" is false and misleading as an individual cannot reject or chose an alternative sex at the point of birth. Note: I am not talking about sex reassignment surgery later in life.
The edit, which simply said that a child's sex at birth usually aligned with their anatomical sex and phenotype, i.e. if it has a penis it is male and if it has a vagina it is female, has been reverted on a couple of occasions. One by an individual stating "Misunderstanding of text" and the other as "something non-understandable".
While not having experience of intersex, or association with an individual who may suffer from malformed genitalia, the fact is that an individual's sex in the normal and natural development of the fetus is not "assigned" but a product of fertilisation. Something which has been known for eons. Would be interested in knowing what the wider Wiki community thinks about removing the phrase "sex assignment" for something that is factually correct. 86.189.234.69 ( talk) 16:32, 21 June 2023 (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 10 | ← | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
I have an issue with this definition of intersex Intersex people are individuals born with any of several sex characteristics including chromosome patterns, gonads, or genitals that, according to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not fit typical binary notions of male or female bodies".
Although I am aware that the UN is reliable and all that. That definition of intersex acts like that is the only definition of intersex and isn't controversial. Here's the reality many of the sources on this topic mention there is indeed controversy on what classifies as intersex.
I mean come on the lead even says this The number of births where the baby is intersex has been reported differently depending on who reports and which definition of intersex is used. Anne Fausto-Sterling and her co-authors suggest that the prevalence of ″nondimorphic sexual development″ might be as high as 1.7%.[10][11] Leonard Sax says that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, and that in those ″conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female", the prevalence of intersex is about 0.018%. CycoMa ( talk) 03:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Crossroads: what do you think? CycoMa ( talk) 03:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm just seeing this and had a simple issue with the word notions defined as beliefs. Don't even think about the fact the citation 1 and 2 deal with torture of individuals. The entire intro is political and the sources don't match the intent. Any attempt to clarify anything in the intro is going to be met with stiff resistance and a moderator with banning permission abusing the privilege. The entire intro is BS copy and paste hack and the sources cited relate to human rights violation and have nothing to do with the intro. This wiki page should be a work in progress. They might as well lock it except for the few people that think they own it. Stjoan1 ( talk) 18:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
How about just fixing it. I tried without going into the BS citations on human rights violations and got banned as a result. Activists need to be nonbias and not aggressive over clarifying a word to make it easier to contemplate the intent of the original author. You can't tell me there are not better sources out there that are based on science and not a description from the UN bureaucracy that has no sources of their own. Go ahead, try to fix the intro and check out the lack of simple core values you will be met with. Stjoan1 ( talk) 16:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I will also add that the owners of this page need a lot of clarification throughout if they want people to buy in rather than serve as a political platform. We all know this is a hot topic so it needs to be based on facts and not unverified popular beliefs that have gone viral. If it is not in a dictionary or a real encyclopedia than Wikipedia needs qualified people to create a page to beat dictionary and actual professional encyclopedia writers to the punch according to their own professional generally accepted research practices. The only thing, because of the intro, this page is good for is a source for a daily Google Doodle. You all can have this hack page and eat it too. It will avail you nothing. Stjoan1 ( talk) 16:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Example. Read the entire page. https://www.britannica.com/science/intersex
Stjoan1 ( talk) 16:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Read the entire page. The whole thing keep scrolling down for crying out loud. Stjoan1 ( talk) 17:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Also, just reading the opening it includes mammals. A human is a mammal. This proves we are not qualified to even have this page on Wikipedia. We're obviously not qualified. Stjoan1 ( talk) 17:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
And why do we have a page on Intersex devoted only to humans. It is not unique to humans. Just keep digging proving my point that this page is a hack that is carefully guarded. Stjoan1 ( talk) 17:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
And as we can see from the user that started this talk that even logical reasons for the intro question are going to be ignored. You want a page for a Google Doodle than you got one. Stjoan1 ( talk) 17:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
And by the way banned and barred are synonymous. Another reason the guardians of this page couldn't write their way out of a wet paper sack. I'm using Britannica as an example of the bar we need to exceed. We just don't have the resources because this page is locked down for further discussion or edit. An appearance of a conflict of interest is a conflict of interest and the way this page is being managed is full of conflicts of interests mainly in the form of being one sided. At the very least the guards of this page need a controversy section that is unbiased if you continue to keep it locked from anybody that sees a need for clarification. If this is a human rights page than title it as such and I'm fine with that but the title for now is Intersex and the intro is incorrect that was logically pointed out and ignored by the OP. Stjoan1 ( talk) 18:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Bans are different from blocks, which are used by administrators to technically prevent a user account or IP address from editing Wikipedia. Blocks are used chiefly to deal with immediate problems such as vandalism, disruptive editing or edit warring. A ban, on the other hand, does not technically prevent editing; however, blocks may be used to enforce bans.
intersex, in biology, an organism having physical characteristics intermediate between a true male and a true female of its species. The condition usually results from extra chromosomes or a hormonal abnormality during embryological development. The sex mosaic, or gynandromorph, is an intersexual organism that has male parts on one side of the body and female parts on the other. Arthropods, mammals, and birds have been known to be gynandromorphic.
The result of the move request was: no consensus, thus not moved. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 12:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
– I was surprised to find that
Intersex was the article about humans, and it seems a very easy issue to fix. Moving here provides easy opportunity for avoiding parenthetical disambiguation with a less surprising title (
WP:PLA). I note that
Intersex already begins with Intersex people are individuals…
, so it is likely to be the most natural way to title the article about humans. —
HTGS (
talk) 00:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC) — Relisted.
P.I. Ellsworth ,
ed.
put'er there
00:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Intersex people, and not intersex as a condition. (See also: List of intersex people, Intersex people in history, Intersex people and religion, etc.) In fact, the wording we use—intersex, and not intersexual, intersexuality or intersexism—means that in most (not all) usage around people, we are using the word as an adjective. Further, this article already emphasizes the social aspects more than the biological, which is why I didn’t propose Intersex in humans to try to make this a sub-set / secondary topic to the biology article.
Renaming in this way will break a great many links that formerly went here. Please see Cleaning up after a change in topic structure. It is a job, but not a terribly complicated one, to shift link targets. I personally will do that work myself if necessary.
Having recently read the Wiki article Intersex, I elected to edit the phrase "sex assignment" as an individual's sex is not assigned to them, i.e. no-one gives it to me, but is a product of fertilisation. The use of the term "assignment" is false and misleading as an individual cannot reject or chose an alternative sex at the point of birth. Note: I am not talking about sex reassignment surgery later in life.
The edit, which simply said that a child's sex at birth usually aligned with their anatomical sex and phenotype, i.e. if it has a penis it is male and if it has a vagina it is female, has been reverted on a couple of occasions. One by an individual stating "Misunderstanding of text" and the other as "something non-understandable".
While not having experience of intersex, or association with an individual who may suffer from malformed genitalia, the fact is that an individual's sex in the normal and natural development of the fetus is not "assigned" but a product of fertilisation. Something which has been known for eons. Would be interested in knowing what the wider Wiki community thinks about removing the phrase "sex assignment" for something that is factually correct. 86.189.234.69 ( talk) 16:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)