Talk:Intersex#This article is a mess :.28

{{Edit semi-protected|Intersex|answered=yes}}

Hello dear editors,

I would like to propose adding the following sentence to the first paragraph of the article:

"Intersex is not a third sex but a variation in sex characteristics, typically aligning to some degree with male or female."

I plan to support this statement with credible scientific sources, such as this article from PubMed Central, which is a well-respected database for biomedical literature. (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10265381/)

The reason for this addition is that there is a common misconception that intersex represents a "third sex" rather than a biological variation within the male-female framework. I believe this clarification is important for accuracy and public understanding.

If needed, I can also provide additional peer-reviewed sources from recognized experts in the field to further substantiate this statement. I appreciate your consideration and look forward to your feedback.

Thank you for your time and effort in maintaining the quality of this article. Donboss21 (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done for now}}: Please reformulate with a properly formatted reference. Please indicate exactly where in the first paragraph you want this insertion. UtherSRG (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::Dear mod, thank you for your answer

::The first paragraph says: Intersex people are people 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". (My sentence goes here) Intersex though is not a third sex but a variation in sex characteristics, typically aligning to some degree with male or female.

::After that I can provide the citation with the officially recognized medical article.

::I already explained why I find it extrememly important to add this sentence.

::Feel free to ask me anything.

::Thank you. Donboss21 (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Please include the properly formulated reference here. No updates will be made without the reference. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::this is my reference

::::https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10265381/ Donboss21 (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Please read WP:REFB and properly format it. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::excuse me I am new and I dont know how this works, please inform me if I made a mistake Donboss21 (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Oh excuse me

:::::Rehman, R. (2023). “Intersex” does not violate the sex binary. The Linacre Quarterly, 90(2), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/00243639231155313 Donboss21 (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I suspect you will have a great deal of difficulty convincing people that an article published in "the official journal of the Catholic Medical Association" [https://journals.sagepub.com/home/LQR], attempting to show that "the Magisterium of the Catholic Church remains correct that sex is binary" is a reliable source regarding a question which is biological, and scientific, in its scope. At best, it is possibly a minority opinion - and whether it merits discussion in this article would be dependent on evidence that said article had been widely cited elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::You are right, but its scientifically undeniable that intersex is not a third sex because there are only two gametes, sperm cells and egg cells and I have no idea why isn't this mentioned in the official Wikipedia article. No scientist has ever said that intersex is a third sex. About the source I can absolutely find 100 others that have nothing to do with religion whatsoever. From what you told me I realize that I need to find an official source that is widely accepted and scientifically proven. Again sorry Im new to this platform and it's kinda confusing at least for me. Should I provide a different source and turn it into an APA source? How can I privately contact you to help me with this issue. Donboss21 (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Your personal opinion regarding what is or isn't 'scientifically undeniable' is of no relevance to Wikipedia content: see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. And I very much doubt that you will find the scientific sources you claim exist, since this article follows current scientific consensus (noting that there are some points of debate) - though it appears to me you may be confusing cultural attitudes towards gender, which may very well include 'third sex' categorisation of individuals, with the biological understanding of the topic of this article, which is less concerned with attempting to shoehorn individuals into categories, and more concerned with documenting what is a very complex issue. And no, I don't provide 'private assistance' regarding article content. This is a collaborative project, and discussions regarding content should take place in locations where all can participate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::First of all I did not mention gender, I was specifically talking about sex.

:::::::::Secondly, I have one single question, if the WHO (World Health Organization) does NOT consider intersex a "third sex" and science claims that mammals only have two sexes, why on earth isnt this article mentioning that, especially since many people think that intersex variations are a third sex? If the WHO is not a reliable source I dont know what is. Donboss21 (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I have made several requests to add a sentence to the first paragraph, or at least somewhere in this article, stating:

"Intersex is not a third sex but a variation in sex characteristics, typically aligning to some degree with male or female."

Initially, I was asked for the reasoning behind this suggestion, and I explained that, unfortunately, in today's environment of widespread misinformation, we are seeing some people claim that intersex is a third sex. I was then told that this change wouldn't make much difference, which I respectfully disagree with. Wikipedia is one of the most common sources people turn to for information.

The moderators suggested that I could add this statement if I provided an accepted scientific source, which I did. However, I was then informed that I needed to cite the source according to Wikipedia’s referencing rules. As a new Wikipedia user, I am not fully familiar with these procedures and found it difficult to understand whether I need to format it in APA style or some other manner.

I understand that many of you have decades of experience, and I don’t fault anyone for not helping me, as it is ultimately your decision. I would like to point out that humans are mammals, and mammals have two sexes. Intersex, as a condition, is considered a variation in sex characteristics but is never classified as a third sex.

I want to clarify that:

1. The WHO (World Health Organization) does not say that intersex is a third sex. It specifically states that sex and gender are not binary, but it doesn't classify intersex as a separate sex (source: [https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/gender-and-health WHO], under "What is the difference between gender and sex").
2. The APA (American Psychological Association) describes intersex as "atypical combinations of features that usually distinguish male from female," not as a third sex (source: [https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/programs/safe-supportive/lgbt/key-terms.pdf APA], page 5).
3. Human Rights Watch similarly does not classify intersex as a third sex. Instead, it defines intersex as “bodily traits that do not fit conventional expectations of female or male bodies” (source: [https://www.hrw.org/feature/2022/10/26/mapping-the-intersex-exceptions HRW]).
4. Intersex individuals themselves, as seen in online discussions (such as on Reddit), do not categorize themselves as a third sex (source: [https://www.reddit.com/r/intersex/comments/1h5ax1g/is_intersex_actually_a_third_sex_or_not/ Reddit]).
5. ThisIsIntersex.org also states that intersex is not a third sex, noting that "Intersex is not a ‘third sex’, because even among intersex people there is great diversity" (source: [https://thisisintersex.org/ ThisIsIntersex]).

Given that all of these reliable sources do not classify intersex as a third sex, I believe it would be helpful to include this clarification in the first paragraph of the article. This would prevent misunderstandings for readers who may not be familiar with the topic. Unfortunately, I don't have the required knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines to make this change.

At the end of the day, I understand that the decision is in the hands of the moderators, but I truly believe this information is important for accuracy. I might be mistaken, but I hope this helps make the case for the proposed change. Donboss21 (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:Please note that Wikipedia does not have 'moderators' - read Wikipedia:Consensus for guidance as to how content decisions are supposed to be arrived at. Beyond that, you seem to be claiming that our article asserts that there is some sort of scientific consensus that intersex is a 'third sex'. I don't think it does. It states that "Some non-European societies have sex or gender systems that recognize more than the two categories of male/man and female/woman. Some of these cultures... may include intersex people in a third gender category." A statement, about specific cultures, which is verifiably true. Likewise, the article states that "Recognition of third sex or gender classifications occurs in several countries", which is likewise verifiable, as a statement about the law in specific countries. The article does not state that science either supports or denies either position. Instead, it describes the current position of biological science, which as I wrote earlier attempts to document a complex issue, rather than making assertions regarding how individuals ought to be classified. Likewise, the article describes relevant cultural and legal matters that the sources we cite consider relevant.

:As for what 'some people claim' , that really isn't Wikipedia's problem, unless it is discussed in reliable sources. 'Some people' will claim almost anything, and it isn't the purpose of an encyclopaedia to engage with any and everything that anyone might believe. Further, I note that none of the sources you quote above (only some of which would meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources criteria) appear to directly support the simplistic assertion you are proposing be added to the lede. You appear to be citing them to support your own position, rather than the more nuanced ones they actually hold. I'd recommend reading Wikipedia:No original research before proceeding further.

:Finally, please do not start a new section to continue discussion on an existing topic. It makes following a discussion a whole lot harder for anyone not already involved, and serves no useful purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::You got me wrong, I never claimed that this article suggests that intersex is a third sex and I did not speak about what certain cultures believe in. All I said was that I think it is important to add this. And the cites I used absolutely DO NOT claim that intersex is a third sex. Also science (as of today) DOES NOT claim that intersex is a third sex, this is not an opinion but a fact. If we can't consider the official opinion of the WHO as valid, then I don't know what we can. All I asked for was that I find it crucial to add that this variation is not a third sex to stop certain people from thinking it is. And since I dont have the necessary knowledge to add this, I'm simply asking one of the most experienced users to do that. That's all I said. If intersex was actually a third sex, wouldn't the WHO consider it or even metnion it as one? And one last thing, there are only two gametes, therefore two sexes, if that's not the case then biology and science in general as we know it needs to change from the beginning.

::Since you told me that some of my sources meet the criteria please tell me which one of these are so we can move ahead to add this sentence to the article. @AndyTheGrump Donboss21 (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Wikipedia does not add content because a single contributor 'thinks it is important'. Or 'crucial'. Important things, and crucial things, are the things sources discussing the topic matter say are: read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. And please stop misrepresenting the WHO statement you cite: "Sex is often categorized as females and males, but there are variations of sex characteristics called intersex. The term ‘intersex’ is used as an umbrella term for individuals born with natural variations in biological or physiological characteristics (including sexual anatomy, reproductive organs and/or chromosomal patterns) that do not fit traditional definitions of male or female[1]. Infants are generally assigned the sex of male or female at birth based on the appearance of their external anatomy/genitalia." That isn't a statement about how many categories of sex there are. Or how many there should be. It makes no mention of any 'third sex' at all. It is a statement about variations in individuals, who sometimes don't fit 'traditional definitions'. As for 'there are only two gametes, therefore two sexes', I'm not going to waste any time regarding that proposition - because your opinion (and likewise, mine) on the matter is again irrelevant to article content.

::::As for the sources you cite, we wouldn't cite Reddit for anything. At best, intersex.org might possibly merit citing, as an opinion, though that would require evidence that the organisation was considered of significance. And since none of the remaining sources directly support the simplistic spin you are attempting to put on them, none of them would justify adding the content you are proposing.

::::Frankly, at this point, I think you would be well advised to let this drop. This is a volunteer project, and nobody is obliged to respond again and again to the same points, when they are clearly supported by neither the requisite sources, nor with any justification for inclusion from Wikipedia policy. While we have processes for dispute resolution (see here) none of them preclude the need for content to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines arrived at through long-term consensus. Policies and guidelines you have been pointed to, but seem not to have read. Or not to have understood. In such circumstances, dispute resolution would clearly be a waste of time. Yours, and that of anyone else who felt obliged to respond. Please don't do that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I want to say one last thing. I did actually read what you sent and it suggests that the changes come from discussions with other users reaching an agreement on the issue including the use of recognized sources. Avoiding discussion is not the ideal, I would really like you to participate in this, because if you don't we won't be able to change anything. At the very least can't we at least add that "intersex is neither recognized nor not recognized as a third sex" I believe this statement includes everything. That's all I'm asking and I would not like it if you did not answer. All I want is that if you think adding this statement would make things better, if not OK then we move forward, that's all. Donboss21 (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Adding content because some random contributor on a mission wishes to impose their simplistic personal opinions in an article that goes into considerable effort to describe a complex situation is highly unlikely to 'make things better'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::No, I changed my sentence, all I said was instead of my previous statement why not add "is not recognized neither not recognized as a third sex" Donboss21 (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Also I do not what to impose anything I just want to have a discussion on this with other editors, exactly as the guidelines suggest Donboss21 (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Endless repetition while failing to take note of guidance regarding policy etc is not 'discussion' - I recommend you read Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. And my response was to your revised text. And I'm done here, unless anyone else engages with this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Agreed with the points made by @AndyTheGrump. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK on this issue. Funcrunch (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Yes I already did, this is why I stopped answering, I should have read the guidelines in the first place. New user, lesson learned, every single one of my actions from now on will strictly follow the Wikipedia guidelines. If I had done that in the beginning there would be no long discussions neither changes waiting to be done. Also if my changes followed the guidelines no one would question my decisions, at least according to the official Wikipedia rules. Also, and Im not being sarcastic, thank you all for your answers, even though we disagree you all included in your answers links that help new users understand how Wikipedia works. One of these links included Wikipedia disagreements and I understood how far things can go wrong when users do not follow the rules. Thank you and sorry if I bothered you. @AndyTheGrump@Funcrunch@UtherSRG Donboss21 (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

This paragraph:

> Globally, some intersex infants and children, such as those with ambiguous outer genitalia, are surgically or hormonally altered to create more socially acceptable sex characteristics.

Has a link on "hormonally" to... Hormones. Not ver useful. Instead, "surgically or hormonally altered" should link here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex_medical_interventions 2804:7F0:90C0:E21B:10C1:CF5E:3480:F43E (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{Respond|minus|Denied}}

:# Please use the {{tl|edit protected}} template and follow the rules in its documentation.

:# Please provide a valid reference. Wikipedia is not a valid reference.

:UtherSRG (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Intersex|answered=yes}}

Hello,

I'm sorry to bring this up as it seems it's been discussed in the Talk section a few times, but can Kallmann Syndrome be removed from the list of Intersex Conditions in the Prevalence section of the Intersex page? I do not see a source listed on the page and I have not found any reliable source that describes it as an intersex condition. Gargoyle2099 (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{done}} I could find no medical sources calling it an intersex condition. I found a couple explicitly stating that it is not one EvergreenFir (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::You should add it back in, you can find sources that do consider it intersex, such as this one: [https://interactadvocates.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Intersex-Stories-Statistics-Australia.pdf] 2A00:23C7:CAE0:3701:F184:3C2D:31FC:13F6 (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The introduction contains a passage on the statistics of intersex people, including a part that starts this way:

However, a response published by Leonard Sax reports this figure includes conditions such as late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia and Klinefelter syndrome, which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex

However, this section related to Leonard Sax has two problems.

1) It states "most clinicians" don't recognize the listed conditions as intersex. However the source given is an article by Sax where he merely makes the claim in the abstract that "most clinicians" think this, but doesn't back it up in any manner. Note that directly after the fragment I quoted, the article then quotes Sax directly in quotation marks:

Sax states, "If the term intersex is to retain any clinical meaning, the use of this 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.

which gives the impression that the text before this long quotation is a neutral, factual datum distinct from Sax's own point of view, when in reality "most clinicians" is also merely his own words. The wording of the article should be changed to make clear that "most clinicians" is his claim.

2) The whole section in the intro related to Sax is 607 characters long. In the main article, the section on Sax is only 491 characters long. In other words, the section on Sax in the intro is disproportionately long compared to what the reader will find in the main article.

This is also backed up by the length of the total "prevalence" sections themselves. In the intro, half of the section summarizing the "prevalence" section is related to Sax. Meanwhile, in the main body, Sax is only talked about for a small proportion of the whole "prevalence" section. The intro does not mention the parts related to Carrie Hull, Intersex Human Rights Australia, or InterACT, despite the importance placed on them in the "prevalence" section.

Correspondingly, after checking the intro, an interested reader will be misled into thinking that Sax's voice is of greater importance to this subject then the actual main article would suggest. It's my understanding that introductions on Wikipedia are supposed to faithfully summarize the contents of the whole article, rather than mislead in this way. Accordingly, the references to Sax in the introduction should be slimmed down and/or balanced by longer references to other voices that the article already highlights in the main body. 2A00:23C7:CAE0:3701:F184:3C2D:31FC:13F6 (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:I have summarized it more in the lead. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)