Guardian idiocy on intersex

[RoyalCorgi]

The latest in the Genderqueer series:

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/jul/14/intersex-children-hasty-operations

They had the opportunity to do a really interesting article on intersex conditions but in the end they opted for repeating the lie that 1.7% of people are born on the "intersex spectrum".

Of course they did.

It's really appalling, the way intersex people are just used in this. So many campaign and protest to have that stopped but nobody listens to them. They're genuinely marginalised.

And about one in 2,000 babies is born with genitalia different enough from what is considered standard that doctors might recommend surgery.

So 0.05% of people "might" be considered for surgery.

Also, it mentions California, it's extremely disingenuous to write articles available in the UK talking about laws/support groups/"the medical system" without specifying which country is being talked about. Even within the U.K. different areas have different approaches.

That article generates more questions than answers, and not because it's well-written.

Not removing internal testes leaves the owner at a higher risk of testicular cancer.

The entire intersex healthcare system assumes that intersex individuals want their bodies to be surgically altered

This certainly isn't true in the UK.
Also yes undescended tested have a higher risk of cancer.
And 'ambiguous genitalia' is not a phallus (penis).
Virilised female genitalia can look more like male genitalia at birth, but that is very different to it being a penis.
I don't get the point of this article - some kids grow up happy with their sex/gender, some prefer to choose their own gender. Intersex people exist. All good.
But there's no real in depth exploration into why parents want/are persuaded surgery is required, why it's offered by the medical profession, if this approach differs between nations/healthcare systems, what are the long term consequences etc which I think would be a really helpful article.
I think there was a real feeling in the medical profession that if a male wasn't going to have normal male genitalia then it was best they were 'brought up a girl' because well - not penis was equated with not man. That's also worth a deep dive as is the patriarchal attitudes still present in medicine. But this topic and the controversy of surgery was being sensitively discussed in the medical profession years ago. It riles me when self-professed progressives pop up and inform the world they've got this whole new earth shattering view of on something when people have been calmly and quietly researching or advocating for the same for years.

I can recommend Galileo's middle finger by Alice Dreger if anyone wishes to understand this better from an ethical perspective.

www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/22571733-galileo-s-middle-finger

There is some well dodgy science at the start where they imply a child was born with both a fully functioning penis and vagina, and later in life could have used each equally. Cool story bro.

This is exactly the kind of lie that actual intersex people get so pissed off about.

Not removing internal testes leaves the owner at a higher risk of testicular cancer.

But if you leave them for a while, they’re useful for winning Olympic, World, Commonwealth games gold medals.

It riles me when self-professed progressives pop up and inform the world they've got this whole new earth shattering view of on something when people have been calmly and quietly researching or advocating for the same for years.

Yes. I’ve been in this profession for 20 years and it’s been standard that babies with ambiguous genitalia are not rushed for surgery that entire time, based on campaigns in the latter 20th century. The parents at the beginning talking about “pressure” in the last 7 years is not typical at all.

The Guardian has a Reader’s editor whose role is to correct factual errors and to correct them. Might be worth pointing out any corrections or clarifications to that article?

The article was written by Serena Daniari, a transwoman from New York. Most of the Guardian's articles on these subjects seem to come from the US, Canada or Australia and are misleading if you make the assumption that the Guardian is still a British newspaper.

I’m going to critique this article fully now I’ve had a chance to read it and digest it. It’s full of errors, cognitive dissonance and disingenuous points.

Cory was born with a phallus, which is medically atypical for individuals with two X chromosomes.

If it’s accurate that the child is XX, it’s clitoromegaly, not a phallus.

Doctors pressured Carol and John to allow them to perform cosmetic surgeries on Cory in order to remove his phallus and “normalize” his genitalia

As mentioned above, this has not been standard practice in the majority of the world for at least the last 20 years. There is no discussion as to why doctors in California are lagging behind the appropriate treatment for such a condition compared to the rest of the world. Instead it’s painted as standard to come under pressure. The parents did well to hold out.

Parents like Carol argue that irreversible physical and psychological harm can result from these surgeries.

This is the start of the cognitive dissonance regarding treatment for kids who are considered trans. Yes, I know that in most places surgery doesn’t happen to children, but in many places it does. Mastectomies are being performed, children aged 16 have had gonads removed. And hormone treatments like puberty blockers result in an effect similar to surgery. There’s a reason why these drugs are used to treat sex offenders.

“If you remove something, it’s gone forever. Who knows if this person is going to grow up to want to have a vagina or to have penetrative sex? And whose business is it to make these decisions except the person?”

Or breastfeed. Or have children. Or have any sex at all. How can a child - someone under the age of 18 - consent to giving that up?

Cory has begun seeing a gender clinician as he embarks upon his gender transition to become his fully realized self, as a boy.

The child is seven. It is equally damaging to determine, at the age of seven, that the child’s fully realised self is to be a boy.

The percentage of people born on the intersex spectrum is roughly the same percentage as people who are born as twins – about 1.7% of people, according to a Human Rights Watch report.

This number is for all conditions, including those whose sex is quite easy to determine and there is no ambiguity of genitalia at all.

And about one in 2,000 babies is born with genitalia different enough from what is considered standard that doctors might recommend surgery.

That’s not accurate. It being “different enough” does not trigger recommendations for surgery.

But when intersex kids are subjected to forced surgeries, the results can be devastating, sometimes leading to nerve damage, incontinence, scarring and diminished sexual function. Additionally, there is a chance that doctors could incorrectly assign a child’s gender, as there is no way to know how the child will identify when they mature. Doing so can cause tremendous suffering and psychological distress for the intersex individual.

The irony dripping from this when applied to children identifying as trans is thick. The key word here is mature. What constitutes mature? Does 12 or 14?

The entire intersex healthcare system assumes that intersex individuals want their bodies to be surgically altered;

Not in any place I’ve worked. If it’s still happening that isn’t appropriate, but as Broomfondle points out, many places have dealt with this.

“When people hear that someone is intersex and they know what intersex means, they automatically assume they’ve been through trauma,” says Sarah, a mom to an intersex child, Rae, who uses they/them pronouns. (Names have been changed.)

The vast majority of people have no idea what intersex means. Cf everyone on Twitter. They think it means conditions like Turner Syndrome. They think it means sex isn’t binary.

The whole article - and the whole long-standing campaign for intersex advocates - is that children should not be medicalised unnecessarily, should not undergo irreversible procedures unnecessarily, and full maturity should be reached to allow time for an individual to make important decisions for themselves.

This is the exact opposite of what TRAs are arguing for for children. They’re arguing that children are mature enough to make these decisions and they and their parents can adequately consent. They’re arguing for hormone treatments for children that result in the same long term effects that surgeries can have: sexual dysfunction, infertility, etc. Their argument is that these kids are old enough for body autonomy. I think it’s bullshit. There is no way on earth a 12 year old can consent to give up these things.

Finally I would end with this part:

Mahmudi explains how vital it has been for her to see visible examples of intersex folks living to their fullest potential and pursuing their aspirations.

Where are all the adult TRAs campaigning to show children that they can be trans and fabulous and happy without altering their bodies? There are plenty of them around. Why aren’t they being a shining example of happy, body autonomy with a gender identity and no surgery?

I have significant empathy with intersex advocates and those with DSDs. Their lives are being appropriated by quack science, and an ideology that flies in the face of everything they stand for.