Also, intersex phenotypes are myriad, and much more complex and nuanced than just chimerism v. not. The causes of all these different phenoytpes can be vastly different, as can the mechanisms by which they manifest. I think that this also speaks to my point about there being many many phenotypes and many many different causes of those phenotypes that are grouped under “intersex”. While this is a useful and appropriate label to use for oneself, if one exhibits one of these many different phenotypes, this is not a very useful label (in certain contexts) for the phenotype. I guess that I am trying to draw a distinction between the label that a *person* uses to describe *themselves*, and the label that describes a *specific collection of traits* which that person may exhibit. In the second case, the term really ought to be neutral and non-offensive because it isn’t about you or me as a person, but about your body/physiology or mine – like having high blood pressure or being tall or having green eyes. Of course, as it stands some of those terms have been used as slurs and are somewhat loaded. Yet, in many cases they are the most accurate terms we have to describe a phenotype. I’m not saying that a person should feel like they need to go around declaring to everyone that “I am intersex group 3 hypogondaotrophin hypogonadism”…just that I think some education and less shying away from these terms might make them less scary and othering when it is necessary to use them, like when discussing one’s treatment (for anything really) with one’s doctor.

I hope that I’m making sense.

In any case, I appreciate the discussion and I look forward to hearing any further thoughts on the matter. Hope you get some sleep.

i did simplify by leaving out things like chimerism, of course… you’re right in that by taking a word like “intersex” you’re just swinging a word at a broad swath of conditions and people.

i’m so sleepy, maybe i’ll come back and think this out some more.

I also like “intersex” better for the reasons that you mention – it is not so binary-centric…though a little bit maybe – it means “in between” the two binary sexes. From a biological/medical perspective, this term can be quite problematic though because it does not adequately or accurately describe a phenotype – it’s more of an umbrella term that loosely defines any genetic/gonadal/physical phenotype that *doesn’t* fit the binary. I totally understand why this is a more acceptable term that’s been adopted by intersex people – like you said, ambiguity is both more empowering and less ostracizing than the alternative.

And yet, as a researcher, If someone were to tell me that they’d manipulated Gene C and it resulted in an intersex phenoytpe, that wouldn’t tell me anything useful (recall I’m not talking about human research subjects) – it could mean anything – does this gene manipulation cause ambiguous genitalia? Retention of both the uterus and vasa deferens? Failure of gonads to develop at all? Myriad other phenotypes?

This is why researchers and clinicians hold onto these more archaic terms – they provide an unambiguous description of precisely what is going on rather than just saying that it differs from the binary. Knowing *what kind* of intersex phenotype tells us something about how genes/hormones/whatever it is that we’re manipulating functions in patterning and development of gonads and reproductive systems. This information is useful for treatment of any reproductive disease or disorder which may arise in intersex or gender-binary individuals.

(Is that an appropriate dichotomy? I struggle to find an appropriate non-cumbersome label for non-intersex…like trans/cis….intersex/???? Also, “intersex” or “intersexed”? Which is preferred? Anyone want to chime in on that?)

That being said, it makes a lot of sense not to use these more specific labels for people outside of a clinical setting…and maybe not even there depending on whether the affected person is seeking treatment to change their phenotype or not – if they are, then it is helpful for clinicians to know *what kind* of intersex they are dealing with as this helps them to address the fundamental changes that they are trying to achieve – if not, then as always, I think that the clinician should stick with whatever label the patient is most comfortable with.

But yes, the umbrella term “intersex” is probably a lot better for societal use than any of the more clinically descriptive terms, for all the reasons you mentioned.

It’s all very complicated, and I see these competing needs for appropriate terminology at the center of some of the tension between intersex/patients’ advocacy groups and the medical establishment.

that’s pretty much precisely why “hermaphrodite” is incorrect to apply to humans. it means something that humans just don’t become.

intersex is just so much more accurate, being as the condition almost always seems to describe an ambiguity rather than a duality of genitalia.

but i’m not intersexed, i’m just passing along what i know the terms to mean…

Just an addition to your “hermaphrodite” entry. As a biologist who studies sex and sexual development, I am familiar with a rather different definition of this term. I don’t know how it is/was used in the context of gender idenitifcation and the like, but your readers may be interested to know that in the medical/biological fields “hermaphrodite” *does* refer specifically to intersex phenotypes, and only to a rather narrowly -defined subset.

“True hermaphrodites” are organisms which have both male and female germlines (sperm and eggs) in the same gonad. “Pseudohermaphrodites” are organisms in which the external sex characteristics differ from the sex of the internal genitalia (e.g., having testes and a vagina).

These terms are of course very cis-, binary – and gonad-centric…which is I guess what one might expect when leaving the terminology up to biologists who are rather concerned with the passing on of genes (sexual reproduction) from one generation to the next. When one studies non-human animals as a model for human biology it’s all very easy to assume that binary gender is “best” and “normal” in the context of reproduction.

Biologists who study sexual development are historicaly not very involved in the social implcations of their work (or even the clinical ones) and this is something I would like to see change in the field. In any case, even basic biologists who are not particularly involved in research on human phenotypes would agree that the term “hermaphrodite” (true or pseudo-) is offensive, and so the use of this term to describe phenotypes is by and large restricted to non-human animals.