User talk:MishMich/intersex

What's up? -- Banjeboi 06:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned about the tensions between those who see intersex as primarily a medical issue and those who experience it as a social issue. It is indisputable that there are medical issues involved, and these need to be part of a page on intersex. Also, there are those with intersex experience who see intersex as primarily a medical issue as well as those with such experience who see it as a social/community/identity issue. Some identify as GLB(T)/queer, etc., many do not. Clearly there will be COI's between people on this, but the best way to manage this would be to allow for a presentation of both perspectives. Unfortunately, those best placed to contribute will be those with expertise or experience in this area, i.e. those with the COI. The best way to manage this, as I see it, is to present the medical information in the context of the social and historical details, and that the page would be best managed by describing the disagreements, with the respective POV's being allowed to present their perspectives in the relevant sections. So, it is entirely in order that a new initiative to replace 'intersex' should point to a section on that, with a discussion about the lack of consensus within the community. I am concerned that the approach to this has taken the turn it has - with an attempt at unilateral editing without consultation over a relatively short period of time. I still think that a better approach would be to either re-develop the intersexuality page in the way I have suggested under discussion, or maintain 'intersexuality' as an archaic term like 'hermaphrodite', with a new section for 'intersex' (which currently simply redirects to 'intersexuality') and can be utilised for its identity/community/social/historical meanings, with a discussion of and link to 'DSD/VSD', and the archaic terms 'hermaphrodite' and 'intersexuality'. MishMich (talk) 12:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you - generally - it's taken a long time but finally homosexuality is being cleaned up bit by bit and that's been a magnet for problems from day one. The reason it's getting cleaned up like this now is because lesbian was completely rewritten. It's all a process so even if something is added it can be deleted later and vice versa. the article's edit history holds anything that's ever been there before. it may be hard to find but it's there. There are a lot of articles to be sorted out through this process and I can't say for sure which should be the priorities and even which content belongs where best. Intersexuality is quite a mess no matter how you add it up. It may also make sense to start on a smaller articles and clean them up first. I hate to sound like a killjoy but your recent bits on intersexuality mark you as needing watching and that's probably not what you're aiming for. I suggest checking out this template hopefully you'll be familiar with some of those subjects enough to read them and make some basic edits to get more in the process of constructive editing. I'm thinking more on the Intersex project because I want to make sure we get it right and help other editors understand the difference between the physical conditins and the other aspects. Anny good books or authors you'd suggest? -- Banjeboi 02:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sharon Preves, 'Intersex and Identity: the Contested Self' Anne Fausto-Sterling 'Sexing the Body'

when I am on my other PC I will get some more references for you - it is difficult because I use Linux most of the time, but my thesis & bibliography is on Windows.

I would be happy to work on 'intersex' as a new project - but it is reduced to a redirector to the 'intersexuality' page, denying those who identify as 'intersex' to a page other than the overly medicalised 'intersexuality' page. Imagine how you would feel if 'gay' redirected to a 'homosexuality' page that was predominantly made up of information derived from Westphal and Krafft Ebing, and weighted towards the views of doctors sympathetic to NARTH, and described it primarily and repeatedly in terms of 'defects'. Mish (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol! That's pretty much what they were! It's a process, what stops the nonsense is better writing and sourcing, and of course, the vigilance to suffer the nonsense and keep cleaning up the work you've already done. I've cleaned up the Bindel one a bit but what it really needs is all the other information about her. You can't let this eat you up, you choose what you enjoy writing about and then fix what's wrong on current articles. If you see something that's off but don't want or are otherwise unable to fix it then speak up so others can try to address it. In the LGBT group we have some tremendous editors all working on different aspects but jointly supporting each other, The WikiMed project is superb at detecting the BS when it comes to medical info. Things may not transform overnight but they will improve and then get vandalized, at that will be cleaned off etc. Articles grow organically and it's not always pretty. But we aim for what the articles should be and navigate with other editor's ideas as well. There may be a case for having both Intersex and Intersexuality but if and when those two articles exist we also have to ensure it's clear what the difference is so they remain logically separated and content stays in the right spot. -- Banjeboi 19:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

On the intersex pages discussion - I do think it best to keep the one page, although 'intersexuality' is not as appropriate as 'intersex'. My point about separation is about the medical wanting their cake & eat it - having re-categorised intersex as a 'disorder of sex development', with minimal consideration that intersex people might not want this, they seem to want to still hang on to intersex and dominate the discourse about intersex in the way they have done. My point is simply that intersex needs to be approached within its social context, and medical intervention is a part of that, not the other way around (that the social issues are incidental to the medical issues). I am happy to work with people - but the master/slave approach that has persisted for so long will not work any more. They will appreciate this, because I always get my point across eventually. Although this is clearly an issue very close to my heart, I am actually enjoying this now, because I think people are beginning to understand what I am saying - and I see this as being about informing people - which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be all about. I love getting people to understand and see things in ways they might not have before. This is why I try to draw analogies with other disadvantaged groups - because often what is a no-brainer in one situation is not obvious in another. In the case of intersex, the medicalisation itself helps to obscure that this is a human rights issue. I am looking into alternative images, and I have contacted the editor of the journal the image was dawn from to get confirmation that the parent understood that their consent to its use in the journal would entail the images taken became available within the public domain beyond their medical use. Although they have not contributed to the discussion, quite a few intersex people have expressed concern to me about this image, but feel unable to engage in the way I am able.

Thanks for all your interest. Mish (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)