Against the quiet revolution: The rhetorical construction of intersex individuals as disordered

Abstract

There has been a widespread change in nomenclature surrounding intersex since a consortium of doctors issued a consensus document that stated the term intersex was imprecise and outdated. Suggesting Disorders of Sex Development (DSD) as the alternative, the document has been widely adopted by doctors internationally. Although some have celebrated the reform as a quiet revolution, the decision to label intersex individuals as disordered dangerously pathologizes them, labeling them as defective and in need of correction. This article analyzes the effects of the new nomenclature on intersex identities and offers Differences of Sex Development as a corrective.

Sexual Dysfunction(s) in Iran: Imaginary Encounters with Otto Gross and Wilhelm Reich

“…Sexual ambiguity is tolerated for most members of society with the exception of self‐identifying bisexuals, transsexuals or hermaphrodites (see Najmabadi, ). These individuals are pressured into drastic surgery because their unfixed identities are considered a danger to society (see Douglas, ; Topp, ).…”

Making sense of ‘Intersex’ and ‘DSD’: how laypeople understand and use terminology

“…Rather (in line with critique raised by e.g. Clune-Taylor, 2010; Davis, 2014;Holmes, 2011;Monro et al, 2017;Reis, 2007;Topp, 2013), it seems to immediately evoke negative connotations among ordinary members of the public. Consistent with this conclusion, most parents and young people also found 'DSD' problematic (see Table 2 for a summary of parents' and young people's thoughts on 'DSD'; confirming results in e.g.…”

“…This makes the availability of terms, that laypeople without experience understand, even more important (see e.g. Topp, 2013;Vilain et al, 2007). Accordingly, the current study examines how different terms are understood and what terminology is used as a tool for people to achieve certain ends.…”

“…'DSD' has in turn drawn criticism for failing to achieve the goals that it purports to meet. Based on critical and discursive perspectives, several commentators argue that 'DSD' is being used to give the medical establishment disproportionate power in defining and shaping people's embodiment, needs, identities, access to resources and opportunities for understanding themselves (Clune-Taylor, 2010; Davis, 2014;Reis, 2007;Topp, 2013). In addition, some suggest that 'DSD' fails to provide any more precision than 'Intersex' (Clune-Taylor, 2010), and that the term disorder within the acronym medicalises non-pathological variations of sexed embodiment (Davis, 2014;Holmes, 2011;Karkazis, 2008).…”

“…This criticism has prompted closely related alternatives that nominate variation, diversity or difference rather than disorder (e.g. Diamond & Beh, 2006;Monro, Crocetti, Yeadon-Lee, Garland, & Travis, 2017;Reis, 2007;Simmonds, 2007;Topp, 2013) and a focus on sex characteristics rather than other terms (Monro et al, 2017). Recent medical guidelines for the UK Society for Endocrinology also acknowledge the problems with the word disorder in 'DSD' when noting that the term '"differences [.…”