3 ms·

> Anne Fausto-Sterling s suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the po

by flutas 3y ago

> Anne Fausto-Sterling s suggestion that the prevalence of intersex might be as high as 1.7% has attracted wide attention in both the scholarly press and the popular media. Many reviewers are not aware that this figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling s estimate of 1.7%. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/

DamonHD 3y ago
I don't know why Turner Syndrome should be excluded from this, but in any case the person with it may well not fit into any sort of binary. The one I know best doesn't.
- flutas 3y ago
  From my quick search, it sounds like people with turner syndrome still have the "correct" sexual organs for their physical gender. They may have under-developed ovaries, but still "correct." https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/turner-syndrome/symptoms/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/turner-syndrome/symptoms/
  - DamonHD 3y ago
    That would come as a surprise to my friend who had to have a lot of surgery.
    - flutas 3y ago
      Well, tell NHS they are wrong then? Or maybe your friend has some other issue aside from Turner syndrome that caused them to need surgery. > Even though many women with Turner syndrome have undeveloped ovaries and are infertile, their vagina and womb develop normally. This means they're able to have a normal sex life following treatment with female hormones.
      - DamonHD 3y ago
        Maybe one can play games with words and divisions and so on, but any claims that human sex is absolutely binary falls on my friend's experience however it is labelled. Disease descriptions are messy too.
        someplaceguy 3y ago
        To be fair, it is quite clearly binary in the vast majority of cases. But of course, biology can be messy, so there are exceptions, not just due to genetics but also due to development issues. Apart from that there are also psychological issues, where one's biology might be clearly defined but the person might feel differently, for all sorts of different reasons.
        DamonHD 3y ago
        No it's not fair. I suspect that you have not found yourself in an out group on the wrong end of other people's prejudices very often. a) "Vast majority" is what we seem to be arguing about here, eg when you tot up all the LGBTIQ+ people, they are not "zero" (as some try to claim) nor "chosing to do it" (ditto) nor sub-human (ditto) nor dangerous perverts (ditto, eg in that Bill). b) And even if only 0.00000001% of people were not absolutely in a convenient binary category or the other, would that be a good reason to treat those few as political point-scoring opportunities, deny they exist, or discriminate against them? I suppose that when large chunks of a population still see out and out racism and sexism as somehow acceptable, for example, picking on other minorities for personal gain doesn't seem so weird. So fighting over the details of definition and number of intersex is rather to miss the point that is most definitely real and very much non-zero, and people in power refuse to act on that information humanely.
        someplaceguy 3y ago
        > a) "Vast majority" is what we seem to be arguing about here, eg when you tot up all the LGBTIQ+ people, they are not "zero" (as some try to claim) nor "chosing to do it" (ditto) nor sub-human (ditto) nor dangerous perverts (ditto, eg in that Bill). So.. you seem to be agreeing with me? > b) And even if only 0.00000001% of people were not absolutely in a convenient binary category or the other, would that be a good reason to treat those few as political point-scoring opportunities, deny they exist, or discriminate against them? Of course not. Did you think I was arguing that? Saying that the vast majority of humans have a clearly defined binary sex doesn't mean that it's OK to discriminate those who do not. But let's call things by their names, shall we? If we are to understand each other, that is. > So fighting over the details of definition and number of intersex is rather to miss the point that is most definitely real and very much non-zero, and people in power refuse to act on that information humanely. If it's non-zero, let's say it's non-zero and leave it at that. Let's not exaggerate numbers just because it's politically convenient. But I agree, even if there was only one intersex person in the entire world, that person should have the same rights as anyone else. It's not OK to discriminate anyone. However, let's speak honestly about these issues, so that we can make forward progress. Unlike what many people seem to think nowadays, it's actually possible to discuss important issues without distorting facts. Besides, it's much more difficult to counterargue someone who is using true facts in their arguments than someone who is distorting facts to fit their narrative, so it's a win-win.

by flutas 3y ago

DamonHD 3y ago

I don't know why Turner Syndrome should be excluded from this, but in any case the person with it may well not fit into any sort of binary. The one I know best doesn't.

flutas 3y ago
From my quick search, it sounds like people with turner syndrome still have the "correct" sexual organs for their physical gender. They may have under-developed ovaries, but still "correct." https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/turner-syndrome/symptoms/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/turner-syndrome/symptoms/
- DamonHD 3y ago
  That would come as a surprise to my friend who had to have a lot of surgery.
  - flutas 3y ago
    Well, tell NHS they are wrong then? Or maybe your friend has some other issue aside from Turner syndrome that caused them to need surgery. > Even though many women with Turner syndrome have undeveloped ovaries and are infertile, their vagina and womb develop normally. This means they're able to have a normal sex life following treatment with female hormones.
    - DamonHD 3y ago
      Maybe one can play games with words and divisions and so on, but any claims that human sex is absolutely binary falls on my friend's experience however it is labelled. Disease descriptions are messy too.
      - someplaceguy 3y ago
        To be fair, it is quite clearly binary in the vast majority of cases. But of course, biology can be messy, so there are exceptions, not just due to genetics but also due to development issues. Apart from that there are also psychological issues, where one's biology might be clearly defined but the person might feel differently, for all sorts of different reasons.
        DamonHD 3y ago
        No it's not fair. I suspect that you have not found yourself in an out group on the wrong end of other people's prejudices very often. a) "Vast majority" is what we seem to be arguing about here, eg when you tot up all the LGBTIQ+ people, they are not "zero" (as some try to claim) nor "chosing to do it" (ditto) nor sub-human (ditto) nor dangerous perverts (ditto, eg in that Bill). b) And even if only 0.00000001% of people were not absolutely in a convenient binary category or the other, would that be a good reason to treat those few as political point-scoring opportunities, deny they exist, or discriminate against them? I suppose that when large chunks of a population still see out and out racism and sexism as somehow acceptable, for example, picking on other minorities for personal gain doesn't seem so weird. So fighting over the details of definition and number of intersex is rather to miss the point that is most definitely real and very much non-zero, and people in power refuse to act on that information humanely.
        someplaceguy 3y ago
        > a) "Vast majority" is what we seem to be arguing about here, eg when you tot up all the LGBTIQ+ people, they are not "zero" (as some try to claim) nor "chosing to do it" (ditto) nor sub-human (ditto) nor dangerous perverts (ditto, eg in that Bill). So.. you seem to be agreeing with me? > b) And even if only 0.00000001% of people were not absolutely in a convenient binary category or the other, would that be a good reason to treat those few as political point-scoring opportunities, deny they exist, or discriminate against them? Of course not. Did you think I was arguing that? Saying that the vast majority of humans have a clearly defined binary sex doesn't mean that it's OK to discriminate those who do not. But let's call things by their names, shall we? If we are to understand each other, that is. > So fighting over the details of definition and number of intersex is rather to miss the point that is most definitely real and very much non-zero, and people in power refuse to act on that information humanely. If it's non-zero, let's say it's non-zero and leave it at that. Let's not exaggerate numbers just because it's politically convenient. But I agree, even if there was only one intersex person in the entire world, that person should have the same rights as anyone else. It's not OK to discriminate anyone. However, let's speak honestly about these issues, so that we can make forward progress. Unlike what many people seem to think nowadays, it's actually possible to discuss important issues without distorting facts. Besides, it's much more difficult to counterargue someone who is using true facts in their arguments than someone who is distorting facts to fit their narrative, so it's a win-win.