Talk:Disorders of sex development

genetic causes

I added genetic causes using latest dicovery: [1] [2] Genetrans2 (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

purpose?

I am wondering if there is a need for this article. I mean, I appreciate it being here as it can potentially be a good reference page for medical/biological intent. It has a lot of overlap to the intersexuality article, but will probably have less "gender" topics. The medical side of the Intersex article has become really good though, yet copypasting it over here will essentially make this page even more superflous. We can also start to consider it a category. kriscrash (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I second that. As an Intersex person I take MASSIVE offence at being reffered to as a "disorder". The term DSD was coined by just two Intersex people. It should not be considered mainstream or desired by Intersex people in general.

How do i nominate this article for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.192.5 (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You can check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion policy to see how it's done. Unfortunately, it's not likely to succeed, as there are nearly 1,000,000 Ghits for the term, and hundreds of scholarly references (here's just one, from 2007 titled "Disorders of sex development").

I can understand your offense, but Intersex conditions are disorders; specifically of sex development. It's just a medical fact. 5-alpha-reductase deficiency is a medical condition. This is not a judgment upon the person at all and there are plenty of intersexed people who opt for medical intervention (note the word 'opt', as in personally request) and there are plenty who don't. Some folks are even proud to be intersexed, and more power to them :) However, it's still considered a medical disorder - Allie ^❤ 00:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, let's be constructive here. I am guessing most people are trying to share knowledge, not aiming to diss those who are different. You misunderstand me, anonymous contributor: DSD is a broader category than intersex, so I am mostly asking if we can use it for that. I am not so fond of this "delete things that offends me" behaviour. I am not going to start destroying Nearsightedness articles when they tell me I am disabled 'cause I need glasses. Please, step back and look at things from more than one side.krisCrash 10:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's genetic variation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.139.3 (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

DSD Methodology

If I am reading this correctly, according to the Accord Alliance's website in DSD guidelines in the Methodology section. If Kallmann Syndrome is listed in the Accord Alliance's DSD manual's Methodology section. Why is it not listed in here. I took the liberty of include it because the DSD Manual listed Kallmann Syndrome in the DSD. So it should be accurately reflect and mirror the DSD Manual on Wikipedia as well. It's why if Accord Alliance's DSD manual list Kallmann syndrome, It should be the same thing in here. It is fair after all and should reflect the source, which is Accord Alliance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamododragoon (talk • contribs) 20:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but you need a reliable source, per WP:RS in order to list that. Kallmann syndrome is primarily associated with delayed puberty and anosmia, and DSD is often referred to as Disorders of Sex Differentiation, which Kallmann invariably isn't. From the KS article; "Patients with KS and other forms of HH are almost invariably born with normal sexual differentiation, i.e., they are physically male or female. This is due to the human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) produced by placenta at approximately 12 to 20 weeks gestation (pregnancy) which is normally unaffected by having KS or HH." - Alison ^❤ 05:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's the thing, in the DSD Manual as I am reading it in the Methodology section, it is listed because of this article; "Kallmann Syndrome and the Link between Olfactory and Reproductive Development" by Elena I. Rugarli http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1288264/

Even in the DSD Manual's Methodology section it clearly says that Kallmann Syndrome is listed as " Kallman Syndrome—Raise in concordance with chromosomal sex. Males potentially fertile. Anosmia (absence of sense of smell)." Even in the DSD Manual's reference section Link:http://www.accordalliance.org/dsdguidelines/htdocs/clinical/references.html it dose site the article as "[Rugarli1999] Rugarli E. Kallmann syndrome and the link between olfactory and reproductive development. Am J Hum Genet 1999;65(4):943-8." So how do you get the Info I posted here that I cited from Accord Alliance and National Institute of Health. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamododragoon (talk • contribs) 22:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I would like to propose the following addition:

47,XXY: A chromosomal arrangement where a person has 2 X chromosomes and 1 Y chromosome. These individuals are often mistakenly assumed to have Klinefelter Syndrome because of the XXY karyotype and are given testosterone treatment as well as having radical mastectomies performed on their bodies. For the majority, this may work out well, but there is a group for whom this is disastrous. There are 47,XXY females, some with SRY negative 47,XXY , 47,XXYs who use estrogen and live as females, and 47,XXYs who choose to be androgynous and use no hormone treatment .. Great sensitivity in gender identity counseling with a professional is needed before any hormonal or surgical treatments are employed, with full informed consent, since many XXY adolescents will wish to enhance their masculinity while some will choose to enhance their femininity and others will wish to continue as androgynous

CAWilson52 (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Disorders of sex development. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160914152729/http://oii.org.au/wp-content/uploads/key/Intersex-Stories-Statistics-Australia.pdf to http://oii.org.au/wp-content/uploads/key/Intersex-Stories-Statistics-Australia.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:48, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Disorders of sex development. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080327055333/http://xxxxysyndrome.com/what_is___.htm to http://www.xxxxysyndrome.com/what_is___.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130113082846/http://www.thefocusfoundation.org/FF/XYvariations.php to http://www.thefocusfoundation.org/FF/XYvariations.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100704031951/http://www.aboutkidshealth.ca/HowTheBodyWorks/Sex-Development-Introduction.aspx?articleID=7671&categoryID=XS to http://www.aboutkidshealth.ca/HowTheBodyWorks/Sex-Development-Introduction.aspx?articleID=7671&categoryID=XS

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Differences of sexual development

I see the term 'Differences of sexual development' being used, eg by the IAAF in this BBC article. Not sure if the article title should be changed. Or the term mentioned in the body. Onanoff (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Differences of sexual development listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Differences of sexual development. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

What should be added to the list?

Who do you decide what should and should not be added to the list? For example, why does Uterus didelphys in the list, but Vaginal atresia and Bicornuate uterus are not? --HalfOfDwarf (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

What term does scientific community use?

I know this sounds like a dumb question but in this article you mentioned how some activist and international institutions use the term intersex.

I was wondering what term biologists use or what term sexologist use.

I’m asking this because I still some biological sources use the term intersex and some biology articles on Wikipedia use the term intersex. CycoMa (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 8 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Disorders of sex development → Differences of sex development – https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/differences-in-sex-development/ https://www.rch.org.au/endo/differences-of-sex-development/

Does Differences in Sex Development (DSD) connote a more neutral stance rather than Disorders of Sex Development? IMHO Disorder connotes a disease process/state which is normative rather than difference which is descriptive. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:MEDRS and PubMed. Using quotes, "Differences of sex development" gets 103 results (and "Differences in sex development" gets 3); "Disorders of sex development" gets 10,565 results. The latter is thus favored over 102:1. Now, many of the results of the latter may be due to MeSH keywords - these are themselves an argument in favor of that name, but even restricting the search to "Title/Abstract", we get 1,061 results, which is over 10:1. Neutrality is achieved by following the sources as a whole, not what we personally think. That "disorders" is "normative" is just philosophizing. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC) updated Crossroads ^-talk- 06:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Crossroads. -- Netoholic @ 13:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:Common name and WP:NCMED, and per Crossroads. I'll alert WP:Med to this discussion. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose but with sensitivity and understanding for children, adolescents, and adults with differences in sex development. However, in the final analysis, as other editors have noted, "disorders of sex development" is the most common term in the medical literature. (Please also see my comment, below.)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 06:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• oppose per all the above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This is both the proper name and the common name. This is an encyclopedia, not a support website. Natureium (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
• Weak oppose given the overwhelming prevalence of "disorders" in the modern medical literature but support adding the alternative term to the article. jamacfarlane (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is an encyclopedia. We can't override the common and scientific name in an attempt to make people feel better. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support in principle, but I do understand the reasoning of the opposition, it is an old established name. Only gradually some organisations are improving their terminology e.g. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/differences-in-sex-development/. WP:Common name Should this article in fact be merged with the Intersex article, under the title Intersex as that article gets far more (x14) wiki reader visits. Plus WP:NCMED Is not *Intersex* now the name used more often also in the modern academic literature here Google Scholar and here PubMed. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC) edited ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 08:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments

The same sensitivity and understanding I mentioned above is important for family members, partners/spouses, and friends. On a related note, from a clinical (intervention, support, treatment) perspective, using terms such as "differences in sex development" may often facilitate effective communication, therapeutic rapport, and treatment/support success. For example:

The use of phrases such as ‘differences’ or ‘variations’ in sex development may help to introduce the concept of the range of variation that may occur in sex development. The acronym, DSD, lends itself to be used as a phrase that includes ‘differences and disorders of sex development’ and, as such, may be more acceptable to the young person and their parents.

At the same time, as other editors have noted, "disorders of sex development" is the most common term in the medical literature. Over time, physicians and other authors/researchers might shift to using "differences in sex development" in peer-reviewed journal articles and books, at which time an article name change (move) would probably be appropriate. ¶ Also, it is important to note that the article discusses—in what seems to be a comprehensive manner—the controversy about terminology, particularly the use of the word "disorder". Therefore, I believe we are using the (currently) correct terminology while also addressing how words like "disorder" can lead to adverse psychological effects. [I do not mean to imply that the article covers it all perfectly. It is still C-class, so there's lots of room for improvement. ;o)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 06:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I am just a layman in this area, but I find the phrase "differences in sex development" broad to the point of obfuscating the topic. Penis size, labial formation, breast size, and even vocal pitch or skeletal and muscular development could all broadly speaking be called "differences in sex development" which would often not fall into the range of being a medical concern. Certainly, sensitivity must yield to accuracy when it comes to medical terminology. -- Netoholic @ 06:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I think we are on the same page. :)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 07:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

References

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge with Intersex?

~ BOD ~ floated the idea (above) of merging this article (Disorders of sex development) with Intersex. IMHO it's an idea worth exploring. Of course, it would require a formal merge proposal to make it happen, as you know. I don't have time to investigate the possibility myself, but if someone else does, I will certain read whatever is posted and give it serious consideration.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 03:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT

This article is heavily weighted toward coverage of the name, rather than the conditions themselves. This should be rectified. I will make some attempts, but would appreciate help. Natureium (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Though they are covered here, the conditions are also covered in the Intersex article. To have them in both places might be repetition. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 05:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Personally I do kind of agree with you on the statement that this article is heavily focused on the name.

I think there should be more information on this article. I’m gonna try and see if there are more sources out there. CycoMa (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

re. "those seem like valid examples to me"

@EvergreenFir: I'm afraid they're not. I have a lot of background in a number of the conditions I removed, particularly the sex chromosome aneuploidies, and some more broadly in the whole intersex/DSD/etc matter as an outgrowth of that interest. This list is...I hate the term 'cruft', but it's the only thing I can think of. The conditions I removed are not intersex/DSD (a very few have some advocacy argument for it, the majority don't). The sex chromosome aneuploidies in particular are not, and the idea that they are isn't supported by either the sources given or the medical literature on them more broadly. For a small number of them (the male polysomy X conditions) there are some advocacy positions that they are, and discussion of this would be due weight on the articles for those conditions, but not as an unqualified "this is what a DSD is" on the broad article. For the female polysomy X conditions, they absolutely aren't. The non-SCAs removed are again still ones not uncontroversially categorized as intersex/DSD and where the cites given don't support the idea they are. I could if I'd felt more exclusionist removed more of the list; it's a pretty serious violation of MEDRS and misinterpretation of the sources it does give, and there's a real argument for cutting it entirely. Vaticidalprophet 05:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I'm still skeptical, but your are more knowledgeable about this topic than I am. I think there might be issues around what exactly is included in DSD. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Just a question do you have any sources for this claim? CycoMa (talk) 05:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I do agree with you that many of the conditions listed were never once considered intersex. However, I’m not entirely sure about them about them being DSDs. CycoMa (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the argument that SCAs are categorically intersex conditions, which was a mix of "completely unsourced" and "cited to sources that don't support it" (e.g. the cite for XXYY includes absolutely no results for "intersex", "DSD", or even "disorder of"). Turner's (which I kept in the article) and XXY (which I excluded) both have some level of scholarly debate over whether they constitute intersex conditions, which is touched on in e.g. (non-MEDRS, not an appropriate source for this article) Griffiths 2018; the matter is not settled for certainly the latter and to a significant degree the former. (The list in intersex proper is similarly poor and inclusive of things that have never been called an intersex condition, but if I'm getting reverted here I suspect I'll get an even worse reception there.) Vaticidalprophet 05:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Here are some sources that may be helpful.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/differences-in-sex-development/

https://www.mottchildren.org/conditions-treatments/disorders-sex-development

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/16324-disorders-of-sex-differentiation

CycoMa (talk) 06:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

None of these support "all SCAs are DSDs". Two of them categorize Klinefelter's as a DSD, one does not. They very much do not categorize things like trisomy X as DSDs. I'm also skeptical about whether such simplified patient-targeted sources are appropriate for controversial claims. Vaticidalprophet 06:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Many of the removed sex chromosome traits are included within the scope of 'DSD' in both of the following global medical sources, including the one that is attributed as introducing the term DSD:

• Lee, Peter A.; Nordenström, Anna; Houk, Christopher P.; Ahmed, S. Faisal; Auchus, Richard; Baratz, Arlene; Baratz Dalke, Katharine; Liao, Lih-Mei; Lin-Su, Karen; Looijenga, Leendert H.J.; Mazur, Tom; Meyer-Bahlburg, Heino F.L.; Mouriquand, Pierre; Quigley, Charmian A.; Sandberg, David E.; Vilain, Eric; Witchel, Selma; the Global DSD Update Consortium (2016). "Global Disorders of Sex Development Update since 2006: Perceptions, Approach and Care". Hormone Research in Paediatrics. 85 (3): 158–180. doi:10.1159/000442975. ISSN 1663-2818.
• Hughes, I A; Houk, C; Ahmed, S F; Lee, P A; LWPES/ESPE Consensus Group (2006). "Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders". Archives of Disease in Childhood. 91: 554–563. doi:10.1136/adc.2006.098319. ISSN 0003-9888.

For additional clinical perspectives, see for example Hughes, Ieuan (2010). "How should we classify intersex disorders?". Journal of Pediatric Urology. 6 (5): 447–448. doi:10.1016/j.jpurol.2010.04.005. ISSN 1477-5131.

For a historical perspective, see for example: Griffiths, David Andrew (2018). "Shifting syndromes: Sex chromosome variations and intersex classifications". Social Studies of Science. 48 (1): 125–148. doi:10.1177/0306312718757081. ISSN 0306-3127.

Trankuility (talk) 06:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Lee et al has three passing mentions of XXY and none of the other disputed SCAs. Hughes et al (2006) has one passing mention of XXY and none of the other disputed SCAs. Hughes (2010) defines one 49,XXXXY patient with other genital ambiguities as intersex. Griffiths (2018) is...what I linked above. Do these justify a list of DSDs that include tetrasomy X? Or presenting a controversial debate spread out over decades between conflicting advocacy and scholarly groups as a settled matter? (As an aside, the definition in Hughes (2010) of XXXXY as a Klinefelter variant is at odds with the actual field.) Vaticidalprophet 06:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

If you want to disagree with the consensus statement that introduced the term Disorders of Sex Development then please go ahead, but it is regarded as foundational in the clinical field. I agree that trisomy X and XYY do not belong in this article, but the burden of proof lies not on proving inclusion but on proving a need to change longstanding inclusion. Trankuility (talk) 06:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

What part of WP:BURDEN requires that disorders everyone agrees don't belong in the article, with no reasonable suggestion they could belong in the article or be included in any reasonable definition of its scope, remain in the article until someone explicitly finds a "cows are not a type of rock" source? Vaticidalprophet 14:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

You're conflating multiple different scenarios to push your opinion. Are you arguing about a situation where everyone is in agreement? Are you arguing a point about lack of citations? or about the perceived quality or relevance of those citations? If you're arguing with the consensus statement that prompted this Wikipedia article then you're adding your voice to a long list of organizations and people that object to that, but the solution is much bigger than delisting conditions that you have an opinion on. Trankuility (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The proper response to clinical controversy about what is included within the scope of DSD is to describe that controversy and different perspectives, in the same way that the article does for community/human rights/patient/advocacy perspectives/ Trankuility (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I just started a section on clinical controversy. I hope you might expand it and add citations regarding those sex chromosome variations that are named in the 2006 consensus statement. I agree that those sex chromosome variations not named in that statement should be removed from this article. Trankuility (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I guess you do have a point in that area. I have checked some patient-targeted sources that had misinformation.

CycoMa (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Vaticidalprophet, please do not hesitate to remove anything that is inaccurate at the article Intersex. I am at that article as well and will support such an effort. I see on your userpage that you are knowledgeable about and have worked on these topics extensively. As with any medical topic, yes, this subject could easily still have inaccuracies or undue weight, such as material that inflates what conditions are included in these labels. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Trankuility, do not WP:Edit war in material that fails WP:Verifiability and WP:MEDRS. It is highly inappropriate to include conditions that are not considered DSDs here. That's WP:OR. We don't do WP:ADVOCACY or right great wrongs. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I was participating in this discussion, as you should have been before you engaged in edit warring. Trankuility (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I read the discussion and took action on that basis. WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN are clear about how it works in this sort of situation. Sources need to specifically and definitely include a condition under the label (DSD or intersex, depending on the article) for it to be listed. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

So you should have read that I concurred on the principle, but not on the breadth of the deletion - because of citations that I gave. You were preemptive and edit warring. Trankuility (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above explains the issue. I said that ones with proper sourcing could come back. [3] But they can't all stay on that basis. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Conditions section has problems

The conditions section has two main problems. One, many of parts don’t cite any sources and they contain some information that’s not needed.CycoMa (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention some conditions that are considered DSDs are excluded.CycoMa (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

What counts as a DSD

This is just a proposal for this article. How about in the conditions section we list conditions that are considered DSDs by sources and if there is controversy on whether or not that condition counts as a DSD we should briefly explain why.CycoMa (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The overview section is problematic

There are many parts in that section that are unreferenced.

The overview section also appears to be more focused on DSDs that cause ambiguous genitalia, which is problematic because most DSDs don’t cause ambiguous genitalia.

It also has a lot of partisan sources.CycoMa (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it is reasonable to describe United Nations bodies as partisan in this context, and the rest of the sections seem to be MEDRS. So I'm not sure what you're talking about, as far as sourcing is concerned. Newimpartial (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

MEDRS. United Nations isn’t a medical organization. That section in general barely sites any medical sources.

There weren’t any medical journals before I edited that section.CycoMa (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

That isn't true. While you added good sources, there were MEDRS sources cited in much older versions of the section (and subsection). Also, all the UN sources concern the term "intersex" and are within a context do not source medical claims to which MEDRS would apply. They are also not partisan sources. Newimpartial (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

If they were their earlier why aren't they there now? Also, I’m not sure I believe you when you say that. I have been scrolling through this and reading this article for year's before I have joined Wikipedia. I have always remembered that section being tagged as lacking sources.

Also technically they are partisan sources. None of the sources in source [11] are medical in the slightest.CycoMa (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The UN sources aren't MEDRS, but also don't need to be to source the preceding sentence (not WP:BMI). Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Cyco, why on earth do you regard UN bodies as partisan? Do you plan to make war against the earth and its inhabitants? If not, who can the UN be seen as partisan against, in this context? Newimpartial (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

"Partisan" isn't the word I'd use, but the UN is by no means above criticism or manipulation. Witness the presence of countries like Saudi Arabia on the UN's Human Rights Council. The UN is quite far down the list of what I'd consider reliable sources, along with governments in general. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Your personal views on publications by governments and international organizations are noted, but they are simply your own personal views, not backed by WP policy or community consensus. Newimpartial (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Here’s one thing I keep seeing you keep doing on articles. You appear to think all sources are valid regarding certain topics. Here’s the thing not all sources are ideal for certain topics.

If Wikipedia wants to include information regarding the symptoms for cancer, we use a medical sources, not a political source.CycoMa (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Sources need to be valid for the exact sentence(s) they are used to support. They do not need to be valid for "the topic"; they need to be valid for "the specific claims".

If you find political/government sources that are discussing a subject, that means that there is a political/government viewpoint on the topic, and therefore, per WP:YESPOV (which is a major policy), the article needs to contain some sentences that describe the political/government viewpoint on the topic. For example, if the topic is drunkenness, then there is a medical viewpoint (certain levels of inebriation affect different people in different ways) and a political viewpoint (0.08% BAC earns every driver a trip to jail, no matter how much or how little that level affected the individual). The correct approach is to put both of these viewpoints in the article. The wrong approach is to say "Well, this is a medical article, so I exclude all government sources" or "Well, this is a political article, so I exclude all medical sources". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

From a medical point of view the term DSD is generally accepted. The term is only really controversial by affected individuals and activist groups. Also I never said we shouldn’t include what political organizations or activists think on the subject.CycoMa (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

If the term is only really controversial by affected individuals and activist groups, then the article should say that the term is contested by affected individuals and advocacy groups. If surveys support a negative impact, we also report the surveys. I don't know why you have a problem with the sources used in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 23:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything at WP:RS, especially WP:SOURCETYPES, that suggests I'm wrong. Indeed, it is the opposite view, that governments are reliable, which is unsupported by policy. (Not to be confused with government-funded academic research.) Anyone who edits in the areas of climate change, GMOs, and so on would know that governments very often get politically-charged topics wrong. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS, for example, emphasizes the reliability of guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies - many of these are produced by what you are calling "government" bodies or by international organizations. If you are arguing here in parallel with all of the "skeptics" who dismiss IPCC as a source in the climate change domain ("because gummint"), I sincerely hope that that argument will be laughed away here as it should. It certainly does not reflect WP consensus.

And thanks, Cyco, for comparing the nomenclature of intersex/DSD to the disease of cancer. As a recovering Goth, you have pretty much made my day. Newimpartial (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The operative word there is "expert" in "expert bodies". It has to be from relevant academic experts, not a political body. IPCC is clearly an expert body. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

It would take some effort to convince me that the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is not, in fact, expert on the rights of persons with disabilities in precisely the same sense that the IPCC is expert on climate change. If not they, then who? Newimpartial (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you please show me a link that the UN committee on the rights of persons with disabilities have medical experts involved. Also another user removed the source from UN committee on the rights of persons with disabilities.CycoMa (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think that is relevant? Newimpartial (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

My entire argument was that many of those sources aren’t medical sources. If the UN committee on the rights of persons with disabilities has no medical professionals involved or no medical knowledge then it probably doesn’t count as medical source.CycoMa (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Right; I get your argument. But it wasn't used as a source for a medical claim so why would that matter? Newimpartial (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Specifically, the statement in question is UN Treaty Bodies have called for informed consent by individuals subjected to medical treatment, improved disclosure, and access to redress. Since this is a statement about "who said what", I can't imagine why it would matter whether the authors had medical qualifications. Being a medical expert wouldn't make you have special skills in determining whether the UN did or didn't say something. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The article has been tagged as needing more medical sources and that it relies too much on partisan sources. Because for some reason earlier editors had a strong bias against the medical view on the topic of DSDs. Like I’m surprised that no one before mentioned that DSD is a generally accepted term in the medical community I found like 4 reliable sources that mention it’s generally accepted. This article has been around since 2007 and I’m surprised no medical professionals on DSDs edited here, and I’m surprised editors have been noticing issues with this article recently.

As a matter of fact I have also been noticing editors mentioning that many articles relating this to topic have been changed radically in recent months. And to be honest I believe I’m the one responsible for much of this.CycoMa (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually I checked at a diff in [2017]. That section has remained unchanged for years. The section had only 3 sources back in 2017 and it was tagged as needing more medical sources. Only two of the sources were medical. However one of those medical sources were a primary source. And the other one was a book from 2002.CycoMa (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you not see sources 10 and 11 in this diff? Newimpartial (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial I just mentioned them. I straight up said that source 10 was a primary source. Also source 11 doesn’t have page numbers making it really hard to verify the claim.CycoMa (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Then why did you say, There weren’t any medical journals before I edited that section? Were you confused?? Newimpartial (talk)

Maybe a little. But one of the medical sources was over 40 years and is a primary source. That problematic because medical view on the topic has changed. And the second source had no page numbers.CycoMa (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

That’s a fair point. I’d be happy to add a page needed tag once I’m off my mobile. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Page numbers was the least of the problems. I'm fairly sure whoever added that source just listed a bunch of people and UN orgs that they know have used intersex and DSD intechangeably. Other than the one link, no specific reports, quotes, publications, or links were provided. I removed the "reference" and added a cn tag. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial I removed much of that stuff because it’s repetitive. It’s that simple.CycoMa (talk) 07:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

You feeling that stuff ... is repetitive is no justification for an edit war. You need consensus for your WP:BOLD edits. Newimpartial (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

By the way can you at least explain why you removed a source that mentions there are types of DSDs.CycoMa (talk) 07:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Because the statement the source was used to support was gibberish. I normally try to preserve sources, but didn't see the point in this case. Newimpartial (talk) 07:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Um there are many medical sources that use XY DSD or XX DSD.CycoMa (talk) 07:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I suggest proposing these changes one at a time in their own sections. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Prevalence section makes no sense

The underlying claim that DSD prevalence is 1 in 5000 doesn't make sense since the high quality sources say that Klinefelter syndrome is a sex chromosome DSD (despite not generally affecting the genitals...but then same source go on to say "but sometimes it does"). Intersex#Prevalence shows that Klinefelter is about 1 in 1000. Few claims about prevalence make sense after the false premise. Need to use more coherent higher quality sources here, EDIT: or simply avoid making claims about anything other than 46,XX DSDs where it is much easier to support CAH as the most common. Maneesh (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Maneesh: these conditions are in a nutshell uncommon. Also, many patients with these conditions don't even get diagnosed. Only 25% of patients with Klinefelter syndrome get diagnosed. So of course statistics are hard.

Also I think some of these conditions should be removed from the list because the sources don't label some of them as DSDs.CycoMa (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Right so prevalence section should be removed. A table like the one in Intersex#Prevalence should be used sorted by the DSD categories with good prevalence estimates for each condition. I don't think the makers of the DSD language have dared try to estimate overall DSD prevalence, they hedge a lot in their writing and seem unwilling to commit to terribly concrete claims (even the ones they do don't always make a great deal of sense); much like the "intersex" prevalence. Maneesh (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Maneesh: what no. This is a medical article, medical articles have prevalence statistics, sometimes theses statistics contradict each other.

Also with regards to that intersex statistic, that was kinda a case of the number being high due to Anne Fausto Sterling creating a broad definition and including conditions that are not recognized as intersex from a clinical perspective. This DSDs statistics don't seem to be that.CycoMa (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

These statistics are not coherent; that's much different than small differences between estimates.I've already shown you that the estimate for one sex chromosome DSD is 5X than a supposed estimate for all DSD; that's not coherent. Either the definition of DSDs is wrong or the prevalence numbers are wrong. In either case, this article should wait until someone who is using the DSD definitions that are part of the article makes a clear case for prevalence. In the meantime, it makes sense to make a derivative of the prevalence tables from intersex that has the various DSD categories...as long as someone calls a condition a DSD it can be put in there since most have sensible prevalence estimates (even if such estimates predate DSD nomenclature). Maneesh (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Maneesh: you do realize this is a controversial topic so of course definitions vary. This kind of thing happens with controversial topics.CycoMa (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I am aware, you can see that the creators of DSD language hedge lot on what they say. What I've suggested above it fairly straightforward, all one really needs to do is find cites that refer to the condition as a DSD. They type of DSD can be added to the table and most of the prevalences have long been known to very sensible accuracy. The 1/5000 estimate for all DSD is certainly not coherent with the sources being used to define DSD. Maneesh (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Possible move

I'm newish to wiki—not sure about how best to go this, but—this really needs to be changed to difference of sexual development and searches for disorders of sexual development needs to be the redirect. It's definitely the consensus of the medical community now. Happy to pull together the research, just not sure how to do this without starting some stupid internet fight. Haashgizh (talk) 06:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Haashgizh, and welcome-ish to the wiki. I moved your comment down here to a new section to leave that years-old discussion undisturbed. Changing an article title is called a "move", and a contentious move like this would require a requested move (RM) discussion. I encourage you to read up on the last one, #Requested move 8 April 2020, and to carefully consider whether enough has changed since then to justify a new move discussion. You should be on the lookout for new evidence or fresh counterarguments. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It’s actually not the consensus. There are 60 different DSD conditions and people with those different conditions have very different opinions on this topic. For example, women with uterine birth defects consider their condition to be a disorder because it causes uterine factor infertility. It not a mere difference or variation. Additionally, intersex is not relevant to all DSD conditions as not all DSD conditions involve a mix of male and female sex characteristics or a mismatch between sex chromosomes, gonads and genitalia. KatieBFacts (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

types

DSDs are subdivided into groups in which the labels generally emphasize the karyotype's role in diagnosis: 46,XX; 46,XY; sex chromosome; XX, sex reversal; ovotesticular disorder; and XY, sex reversal.

This needs rewriting. “46,XX; 46,XY; sex chromosome;” these are not disorders. —Tamfang (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Intersex requires qualification

This entry needs to be edited to reflect the fact that intersex conditions are a subset of DSD. The intersex flag also needs to be removed so that it does not accompany this link everywhere it’s used. The intersex flag is is not relevant to all DSD conditions. It it contributing to confusion about the category. KatieBFacts (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

When was the term DSD coined? When did it become an official diagnosis?

These are questions which I think are crucial to this concept and yet not covered in the article. Tunkall (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

2006. Philipbrochard (talk) 06:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Clinical disagreements about the term section

"Similarly, some clinicians have proposed that congenital adrenal hyperplasia be excluded. Human rights advocate Morgan Carpenter has remarked that this proposal appears motivated by support for contentious medical interventions."

That section is extremely confusing, and does not make sense to me. Ok so essentially, some clinicians want to stricten or tighten the definition of intersex/ dsd , ok. Morgan Carpenter says this is motivated by support for medical interventions, this may just be conjecture and opinion and thus i am not sure about the relevancy of individual people's statements about the issue. Philipbrochard (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Confusion of the term

I think it might be useful to categorize DSD as people with congenital conditions where their chromosomal, gonadal, or anatomical sexual characteristics are atypical (for their sex). It affects up to 1.7% of people.

Meanwhile, categorize Ambiguous DSD (intersex) specifically restricted to those conditions in which typical chromosomal categorization patterns are inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not easily classifiable as either male or female, with the prevalence of about 0.018% only.

Thirdly, any cases of "hermaphroditism" should be renamed to ovo-testicular syndrome. Philipbrochard (talk) 07:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)