More or Less Radio 4 now - prevalence of intersex

The statistics given on more or less are nothing new, others have defined intersex as having a lower prevalence of about 1 in 4000 to 5000.

The problem comes when we have poorly defined umbrella terms. For instance how do we define disabled? Is it just those with physical disabilities or does it include cognitive and mental health ones too? And how bad does a condition have to be to be classified as a disability? Do we include everyone who is diabetic, or those with dyslexic or people like me who have half a finger missing?

The deception creeps in when statistics are quoted without clarifying what definition is being used or when extreme cases are portrayed as being representative of the whole group.

Nauticant, you're right. But the posting on facebook was on 19th, at 21:51 so someone didn't check! I'm not holding my breath either.

If you look at the BBC webpage you'll see a date of 14 Jan 2019. I think that the More or Less programme was actually in response to the Intersex surgeries: is it right to assign sex to a baby? video.

Now would be a good time for the BBC to correct their misinformation. I won't hold my breath though.

and in another corridor of the BBC they're still quoting the 1.7% figure, "The UN Says...".

This bbc news item popped up on my facebook page:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/health-46843612/intersex-surgeries-is-it-right-to-assign-sex-to-a-baby

The facebook item had over 700 comments.

It was posted on 19th Jan. on facebook.

Just heard this on the Sunday repeat of More or Less. Blimey, the BBC have broadcast a programme in this area that firstly attempts balance and secondly isn't propaganda in favour of gender identity ideology.

That was an excellent discussion of intersex stats. Have just listened to it. I heard the 1.7% and thought it a very dodgy statistic. We have over 7000 patients and no more than 10 at a high estimate have an intersex condition. The 1 in1000 sounds much more realistic. It's not helpful for people with intersex conditions to be told their condition is really common and nearly 1 in 20 people has it. It's a form of gaslighting and minimalising their problems.

Love "More or Less".

Ooh I missed that! Thanks R0wan

current thread OP wrote:
"New consultation on Variation in Sex Characteristics includes
"The sex characteristics of focus here are naturally occurring genetic, chromosomal, gonadal, anatomical and hormonal variations...This is distinct from being transgender or non-binary, which are to do with a
person’s gender identity."

Biology to the fore? Intersex is not transgender in print! Issued by the Equalities Office."
www.gov.uk/government/consultations/variations-in-sex-characteristics-call-for-evidence

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3482584-The-teeniest-glimmer-of-hope-in-new-government-consultation

If they are removed from the total, the estimate of prevalence goes right down and he said he thought it might be 1 in 1000, so 0.1%.

That was his personal estimate, he pointed out that the official numbers are much smaller.

He also pointed out that it's still a very broad use of 'intersex' in a way that doctors don't. DSD is the medical term because it does not imply that people are other than male/female and it doesn't conflate different conditions.

er, a slightly wonky willy

Excellent piece.

I think that the modern trans ideology can't survive the correct facts about intersex numbers. The whole thing is built on the idea that the sex classes are social constructs called "genders" instead of material reality. Once you remove the fake intersex numbers the whole ideology collapses.

yes I thought it was good too
I don't think they mentioned that sometimes hypospadias is counted as 'ambiguous genitalia" which it very clearly isn't, that's a baby boy with a lightly wonky willy

Also he consulted the bbc gender person Megan someone to get her % figure (then debunked) . Wasnt she pretty useless on a Womans hour debate before the consultation closed, or am i misremembering?

YY I have a memory of this too.

She had just come into post and struggled.

Will listen to this when I get in.

I recently listened to an earlier programme explaining how they calculate how much Neanderthal DNA we possess. It was fascinating and clearly explained.

The correlation between ‘factually correct’ and ‘clearly explained’ is quite high.

Almost as if people who present false facts make their language deliberately difficult to understand.

I listened to this and found it very intresting. Tim Harford is very good abs i highly recommend his other programme' 50 things that shaped the modern economy '.

Also he consulted the bbc gender person Megan someone to get her % figure (then debunked) . Wasnt she pretty useless on a Womans hour debate before the consultation closed, or am i misremembering?

You can always email them:

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/40zRcKypd3lHBNWl0xWJYMF/contact-us

Thread on related current government consultation:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3482584-The-teeniest-glimmer-of-hope-in-new-government-consultation

That was a v good item. I wish they'd also do an investigation of the Mermaids claims for suicide rates of 'trans' children

Don't they select items based on listeners' enquiries?

I think Paris Lees' claims were fact checked after Question Time last year. Not by R4 but by the independent factcheck organisation.

Will catch this on iplayer now, sounds like they did a fine job.

That was a v good item. I wish they'd also do an investigation of the Mermaids claims for suicide rates of 'trans' children.

sorry for x posting bitter!