Talk:Intersex/Archive 2

message: "Intersex is a valid third gender" - I reverted this comment this morning as I believe it may not have any basis in objective science or sociology ie; it may be just POV. I've no feelings on it one way or another, tho'? Discuss? Re-insert? - Ali-oops✍ 11:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.   See also the question I asked in the last section, which there is (as of yet) no citation for. Nandesuka
Gender is a social construct, while sex is a physiological state. There is actually much research done into the fields of gender and sex, and most notably in the First Nations cultures, they do indeed have more than just two genders. Physiologically when referring to sex, we only have "male" and "female" and intersex as a state in between, but when it comes to gender we have to remember to think outside of North American culture and look to practices in the First Nations and cultural practices in Albania for example. I do disagree with the above statement, intersex as we define it here is a sex, not a gender, though there are alternate genders that could appeal to intersex individuals who may not feel like they conform in our dichotomous North American society. 
--Waterspyder 19:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "A valid third gender"

message: I removed the bullet that said that XY people with Swyers syndrome have a male body (habitus or phenotype). Just wrong, wrong, wrong. Swyer's women have a female habitus, streak gonads, a normal-length vagina, a uterus but no ovaries because they became streak gonads. They will have primary ammenorhea (no period), but with hormone treatment may choose to have a period if they wish. They will have no spontaneous puberty because there are no functioning sex organs to produce hormones. I know this because I once ran the Androgen Insensitiviy Support Group in North America. We supported AIS, Swyer's Syndrome, Myer-Rokitansky and other intersex conditions where the body type (and usually gender identity is female). In fact, given hormonal treatment and donated eggs, Swyer's women can successfully carry a pregnancy. However, this is an encyclopedia and must be based on veriable sources. Here is one on Swyer's. I can produce dozens more if needed. Source on Swyer's Syndrome: http://www.diseasesdatabase.com/umlsdef.asp?glngUserChoice=31464
Donna
In the opening paragraph it says (something like) "any uni-sexual species" - but it should obviously say "non-unisexual," or words to that extent. Can't figure out how to fix it though.
Unisexual is correct. It *sounds* like it should mean a species that only has a single gender, but it actually means a species in which there are multiple genders and each individual is one discrete gender. As opposed to asexual species which have no genders at all, or hermaphroditic species in which each species is both genders, either sequentially or simultaneously.  --JaceCady 03:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little leery of this term, as it collides head-on with the common understanding of "unisex" (gender-blind or sexually ambiguous).  Strictly accurate language would be "sexually dimorphic species", but that doesn't exactly roll trippingly off the tongue. --7Kim 09:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swyer's syndrome 

message: I removed the phrase "by medical men" from the first paragraph, in the sentence, "The terms hermaphrodite and pseudohermaphrodite, introduced by medical men in the 19th century, are now considered misleading and stigmatizing, and patient advocates call for these terms to be abandoned."
Why was that there? No one would ever say "medical men", unless they were specifically trying to point out that they were men as opposed to women. Since the context is pejorative, I consider this implicitly sexist, so I just removed it. If someone has a legitimate claim that their being men had something to do with them choosing the terms "hermaphrodite and pseudohermaphrodite", then you can say so explicitly. -- Torgo 08:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was really surprised to see that this phrase ever persisted in the article at all! Thanks for removing it! Catamorphism 09:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed "by medical men" 

message: We need an expert to determine whether or not "hermaphroditism"/"pseudohermaphroditism" are medically accepted, non-offensive words for "intersexuality".
*(1) If so, we should merge these articles.
*(2) If not, we should make the relationship between these more clear by doing this:
**the article "hermaphroditism" deals only with animals and plants, so it should be moved to two new locations, "hermaphroditism (plants)" and "hermaphroditism (animals)".
**Then the page "hermaphroditism should be changed into a disambig page with the following options:
::#for the condition known as hermaphroditism/pseudohermaphroditism in humans, see "intersexuality". This usage now considered offensive by some.
::#for hermaphroditism in non-human animals, see "hermaphroditism (animals)"
::#for hermaphroditism in plants, see "hermaphroditism (plants)"
Can we put this proposal up to a vote? JianLi 19:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need an expert for that. The answer is no, and Cherylchase explained why in the above comment. Catamorphism 19:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So then would you agree with the steps outlined above in order to avoid confusion for users who, seeking to learn about human hermaphrodites, are redirect to intersexuality? Also, I have started a discussion at the Science Reference Desk so that this topic may gain more exposure. JianLi 20:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I don't see the problem. Even before your edits, Hermaphroditism already had this note near the beginning: "Note: The term "hermaphrodite" has historically been used to describe people with ambiguous genitalia or biological sex..." and so on. Catamorphism 20:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) I have removed the question from the reference desk; that's not the right place for discussions like this.  If posting the question to both talk pages fails to get enough exposure, maybe the village pump would do, but there's no need to assume ahead of time that posting here will not be enough.  Anyway, I agree with Catamorphism, and I don't see why we would need to split hermaphrodite into separate articles for animals and plants.  There is already a prominent disambig line at the top of that page; I don't think readers will have any trouble finding the article they're looking for. --Allen 20:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Hermaphrodite?? (see section above)