# Talk:Intersex healthcare

I am not going to take up the second round of this GA right now, but I want to say Urchincrawler has done great work on the geo bias and I look forward to this becoming GA. Czarking0 (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

thanks. I tried to be receptive to your past input so I'm glad geo bias is hopefully no longer an issue. Urchincrawler (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Intersex healthcare/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Urchincrawler (talk · contribs) 05:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Shocksingularity (talk · contribs) 03:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)


### Review notes
I've decided to pass  this article. I concurred with what the previous reviewer liked about the article and found that and the problems in the previous nomination have been fixed, see below:

Citations - Everything is cited inline. Sometimes repeated citations in consecutive sentences in the same paragraph could just be one citation at the end, but that's a minor thing and more of a stylistic/personal choice to enhance readability.
NPOV - Article now contains coverage that isn't overly Western-focused. Broad coverage of developing and Eastern countries is included.
Neutral - Language was neutral for the most part, I did change some wording around a little bit to make it sound more neutral.
Copyright - Offending image from last nom has been removed.
Media - relevant to the article, captions are fine
Shocksingularity (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Shocksingularity: Hi there. Just checking in because another editor has expressed concern that this may not have been an in-depth review, which is expected for every nomination. Have you checked this against all of the Good Article Criteria, including clarity of prose, verifiability and broadness? Did you do any spot-checks of the cited sources? Do you have any further notes or suggestions for improving the article? --Grnrchst (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I did do an in-depth review. This was my first GA review, so I did not record everything on the talk page here but I did check against all the criteria. If you look at the page history, you can see that I made several edits to clarify prose, change unverifiable statements and change things that are overly broad. I also changed some subjective language (ie "intersex people should" -> "doctors recommend that intersex people"). I also spot-checked some of the sources (including 1 2 3) and they checked out. As you can see, I added some  [sic] tags for the last source, which was quoted and had some grammatical errors.
In terms of improvements, some stuff I'd recommend:
Are there any modern researchers that still support surgery on intersex infants/children? If so, why?
The article could also include more information about the term "hermaphrodite" and why/how it has become outdated, especially when referencing humans.
I would like to see more discussion on how intersex is defined. The lead section mentions that it is defined in different ways, but the article doesn't go into much detail. I have seen some debate about whether the term intersex refers just to people who have sexual/hormonal/chromosomal arrangements "in between" male and female or if other differences of reproductive or sexual development are included, such as endometriosis and PCOS.
Overall, I felt that the article did qualify per the GA criteria, but still has some ways to go before reaching FA.
Let me know if you have any more concerns or questions! Shocksingularity (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
That's all great, thanks for elaborating! I understood it was your first GA, it's why I wanted to check in about it (as a review mentor). It's usually best to show your work in the review page. The more detail you can provide for a nominator about what you think could be improved and where things could be more in line with criteria, the more it helps them further improve the article (and other articles they work on). No other concerns than what I noted below, nice work going through all this. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! I will be sure to show more work in the future. Thanks for the advice! :) Shocksingularity (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Noting that there is still a clarification needed tag in the sexual health section, a page needed tag for Bates et al in the lack of quality data section, and no less than three CS1 errors. Unresolved issue tags such as these are always something that should be addressed and resolved in a good article review. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Pinging @Urchincrawler: for their attention in this.--Launchballer 12:31, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Could you point out the CS1 errors? Might be because I'm on mobile, but I'm not seeing any errors. Urchincrawler (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
@Urchincrawler: There's multiple names in an author field and a long volume value in one of the sources, not sure which; there's also an inactive DOI for Jones et al. 2016. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js highlights refs 23 and 27.--Launchballer 18:15, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
That's odd, I clicked the DOI for the Jones et. al source and it took my to a page where a pdf version of the source could be downloaded. However when I tried it a few days ago it wouldn't go to that page anymore. My best guess is the hosting website did some maintenance or something. Regardless, it's working now so I removed the dead DOI tag Urchincrawler (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
I mentioned classical CAH in the presentation and diagnosis section so I tweaked that to hopefully be more clear, added page numbers to the mentioned source, and made citation corrections. I don't see any long volume values though.  Urchincrawler (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
I went into the article and seem to have shut it up.--Launchballer 22:50, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
@Grnrchst: Anything else need doing here before I take this to DYK?--Launchballer 11:41, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer: Looks good to go! --Grnrchst (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Since it's a sensitive subject with disputed nomenclature, I decided to create a discussion area here for any language sensitivity issues that way it doesn't become an editing back and forth.

Some info:
According page 95 of "Intersex Stories and Statistics from Australia":
48 percent of participants described themselves with the word intersex, 20 percent with intersex variation, and 18 percent with intersex condition. 
"My diagnosis" and "my chromosomes" were also commonly used (25 percent and 17 percent respectively), but those work on an individual level and wouldn't be well suited for an article about a variety of conditions some of which don't affect chromosomes.
My Current Perpective
My current take is when "intersex" by itself doesn't work in a sentence is to use either intersex condition or variation since both are used roughly the same amount. However, I am open to change this especially if sources showing stronger preference within the intersex community for a certain term are provided. I may call some variations rare rather than just uncommon since to me something that's uncommon might be a 1 in 8 thing, not a 1 in 1000 thing, so rare better communicates levels of rarity to me but that might just be personal preference.
I try to use "intersex people" a lot rather than "patients" unless it's about intersex people while they are being seen by a doctor or their experiences with doctors, patient rights, etc. This is to keep the article's language neutral and avoid medicalizing intersex people as a whole given the history of medical abuse and controversial pathologization towards this community. When talking about wider issues/systemic exclusion/health risks impacting intersex people as a demographic, it's better to use people rather than patients.
There's some other language I'm iffy about in the article like "kidney abnormalities." While that is the language used in the source and it's not technically wrong, "abnormalities" still has some not great connotations. I'm not sure how to best rephrase it though so I am leaving it be for now.
Concerns?
If you notice any other language issues (other than obvious grammar/spelling stuff) or have suggestions, feel free to put them here. Thanks. 
Urchincrawler (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Here is a to do list in areas where this article could have more improvement. Since I've done a lot of the article I'd appreciate a helping hand. If any of you have an interest in this topic and time for research, consider adding on the article in these ways: 

Discuss the move away from the now offensive term "hermaphrodite" and similar uses like "pseudo hermaphrodite" in nomenclature section.
Go into different definitions of intersex more. (Prominent stances on what conditions count as "intersex".)
Research on why some doctors still support IGM.
Discuss health effects of having a prostate (such as risk of prostate cancer) in AFAB intersex people with prostates.
Intellectual disability in some chromosomal intersex conditions like XXYY syndrome.

Thanks to Shocksingularity for some of the suggestions. If there's anything else you think they article could use, don't hesitate to add it (with proper sourcing!)

Urchincrawler (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)