Friday, April 18, 2008

Homochromosexuality: A new psychiatric disorder

13 April 2008
What is homochromosexuality? Before defining this mental illness, it would be better to look at psychiatric disorders in general, specifically psychosis, and then discuss more fully how this particular psychosis affects not only those suffering from it but society in general because this particular psychosis is presented by many influential leaders in religious, medical, feminist and other ideologically based social groups. As a result of the influence and power of those suffering from this particular psychosis, their delusional thinking has made this a more generalized psychotic delusion than other psychotic states. In other words, this particular psychiatric disorder tends to be a massive psychotic state affecting whole populations which has made study of this psychosis extremely difficult and even impossible in some areas of the world.

Psychosis is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality." People suffering from it are said to be psychotic. People experiencing psychosis may report hallucinations or delusional beliefs, and may exhibit personality changes and disorganized thinking. (1)

What are the symptoms of homochromosexuality? The most salient characteristic is the rigid, irrational delusion that sex is dimorphic and that chromosomes determine the real sex of an individual. This obviously combines irreconcilable thought processes which are contradictory and causes those suffering from homochromosexuality to illogically manipulate data to fit their irrational need to refuse the fact that people are extremely diverse and that there is a spectrum of sex variations in the natural world. Despite the fact that data prove that there are not just two sexes and that the sex development process is very complex with numerous parts of the body being involved, all of which can take different pathways within the same individual, these people stubbornly cling to the idea that there is a marker somewhere for the “true” sex of an individual and that there are only two sexes. Whereas the general population often shares this delusion, it is not a psychosis in most people because they are not obsessed with the delusion to the degree that many researchers, religious leaders and certain radical feminists are, who often spend a large part of their lives in useless research and polemics to defend their delusional thinking. However, the damage of this psychosis affects the general population in very tragic and sometimes deadly ways. One of the characteristics that homochromosexuals have in common is their fetish for chromosomes as the most important marker of a person’s true sex despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Let’s consider this fetish for chromosomes which seems to be the most basic symptom of this psychiatric disorder. Essentially, fetishism is attributing some kind of inherent value or powers to an object. For example, the person who sees magical or divine significance in a material object is mistakenly ascribing inherent value to some object which does not possess that value. (2) For quite a while now it has been established as a scientific fact that a “Y” chromosome does not make one male and in fact the “Y” chromosome is not a reliable marker for determining the sex of an individual. For example, there are XY-females who have become pregnant and given birth, some more than once. (See also footnote 3) There are individuals who have no Y chromosome who have fully developed male anatomy. Despite all the facts, this fetish for chromosomes appears epidemic among certain ideologically based groups. Just recently, there was an amendment proposed in the state of California which would have defined a man as anyone having at least one Y chromosome. This was felt necessary because the proponents of this amendment were more interested in their homochromosexual idea that marriage should be only between a man and a woman and they felt they can define exactly what a man and a woman are by chromosomes – their fetish – despite the fact that we know that hormones, gonads, internal reproductive anatomy, and many regions of the brain are all involved in determining the sex of an individual. However, these little bits called chromosomes are held up as having some magically divine power to define the sex of all people despite the scientific proof to the contrary but this obsession is caused by the other comorbid symptom of this psychosis which motivates their incessant quest to find some magical fetish which would define what a man and a woman are: their irrational delusion that there are only two sexes and everyone is really a male or a female. Reality proves otherwise.

This epidemic psychosis, homochromosexuality, is ravaging whole populations and causing severe suffering because it breeds sexism and prevents individuals from developing their full human potential. It is used to keep people in their “proper” place as determined by the psychotic leaders who charismatically spread this fetishism. Women are really very different from men they claim and this little chromosome proves it. “Look at this”, they say. “It is magical. It is God’s proof that we are different.” This is psychotic. Science proves that chromosomes do not have these magical powers.

What groups of the population are most affected by homochromosexuality? One group which suffers a particularly pernicious form of this psychotic delusion is a group of researchers involved in intersex research and research on homosexuality and transsexuality. It is this group which replaced the term “intersex” with “DSD”, short for “disorders of sex development” (a diagnosis which includes a whole array of “disorders” which were previously not intersex at all) and the reason this group suffers from the most pernicious form is because they are studying the very sex variations which prove that sex is not dimorphic but they insist that it really is. Their fetishism for chromosomes is evident in their diagnostic descriptors for each DSD. Each descriptor must start with the chromosome of the individual followed by an incongruent marker which would explain why it is a “disorder” of sex development. (4) It is incredible what magical powers these people see in chromosomes despite the fact that their own research shows that chromosomes do not a man or a woman make. It makes rational discussion with such unreasonable people impossible and at this time there is no effective treatment to help these individuals.

Another group that combines mythical thinking with their fetishism for chromosomes is found among religious leaders, especially in the Catholic Church and many fundamentalist evangelical churches also. In this group, the delusion is more understandable but nonetheless just as devastating to the general population. It is understandable because they are not basing their delusional thinking on science as alleged by the DSD researchers. They are basing their delusional thinking on mythical understandings of the Bible and religious dogma which often contradict scientific data. To read the incoherent thought processes of a typical religiously-oriented homochromosexual, click here. (For more homochromosexual vignettes: Click here or here or here)

Certain radical, separatist feminists are also responsible for spreading this psychosis and one of the most well-known is Germaine Greer. She has refused to consider women with androgen insensitivity syndrome as women and refers to them as “incomplete males”. (6) They are XY she states and one cannot change one’s chromosomes. The problem with her thinking is that there are XX-men and in many cases no matter what a woman with AIS would do, they are not going to be able to be a man because their bodies will not respond to the hormone necessary to virilize their bodies. Her delusional thinking that women are some magical class of people that she can define in a manner to preserve the sacred myth that there are only two sexes and women are very different from men has led her to the altar of the same fetishistic worship – homochromosexuality.

Research is only beginning in this area. No one has been able to find a cause for homochromosexuality. However, some researchers feel that it is possibly genetic and they are working to determine the cause. Their research has an eerie resemblance to some researchers who are using intersex people to try to find the cause of homosexuality such as J Michael Bailey, Eric Vilain (7) and Sherry Berenbaum. Unfortunately these researchers have damaged their own research by proposing a method of prenatal screening for homochromosexuality if the cause is ever found to be genetic. They feel there is no other treatment that would cure this psychotic disorder and therefore feel it would be more pragmatic to eliminate this from the gene pool. They have begun to write a paper very similar to the paper that J Michael Bailey wrote. J Michael Bailey has been interested in finding the cause of homosexuality (and using intersex people to help find it) and at the same time he has written a paper in defense of prenatal screening for homosexuality (8) once the cause would be found and in defense of allowing parents to abort such fetuses. This solution is disturbing to many people and so is the research by some groups who are homochromophobes. Even though homochromosexuality is a serious illness, these people should be treated with respect and it would be more humane to look for solutions to this problem that would be less violent and also take into consideration that there may be some important reason for this genetic anomaly in the human population.

Follow-up:

More recent research on homochromosexuality proves that this psychosis has found its way into poor countries where XX fetuses are terminated, simply because it is believed they are girls, and girls are less desirable. So they say. (Also, we wonder how many XX males have been "cleansed"). Forensics is now just coming to the conclusion that homochromosexuality isn't all it is "cracked-up" (pun INTENDED) to be. Male DNA at a crime scene or female DNA at a crime scene is now coming "under investigation”.

There is a particular form of homochromosexuality which often eludes psychiatric diagnosis and as a result there is a new diagnosis for this extremely dangerous type: autohomochromophilia. Autohomochromophilia is characterized by insisting that one is not a homochromosexual but nevertheless obsessing on the idea that really the current identity politics which divide people into just two categories – those who identify as female and those who identify as male based on some physical feature – is fundamentally valid and they become enamored by viewing themselves as important and scientific as the well-established homochromosexuals who continue to spread their psychotic delusions. One classic case of autohomochromophilia is Alice Dreger who has written: "why it is silly to think of your sex as being what you think your chromosomes are." (9) However, she has spent a lot of her life defending binary homochromosexuals and preserving the male/female identity politics implicit in such homochromosexually-challenged social systems and in so doing has inflicted much damage by erasing intersex and insisting that we are all really males or females with a disorder of sex development.

Is Alice Dreger a homochromosexual in denial? A latent homochromosexual? An ego-dystonic homochromosexual? Or is she just lying which is one of the most typical symptoms of an autohomochromophile? Obviously, her faux “intersex” activism and her binary, sexist views prove the latter.

There is some research which is proving a link between homochromosexuality and folie à deux (literally, "a madness shared by two") which is a rare psychiatric syndrome in which a symptom of psychosis (particularly a paranoid or delusional belief) is transmitted from one individual to another. The same syndrome shared by more than two people may be called folie à trois, folie à quatre, folie à famille or even folie à plusieurs (madness of many). Recent psychiatric classifications refer to the syndrome as shared psychotic disorder (DSM-IV) (297.3) and induced delusional disorder (folie à deux) (F.24) in the ICD-10, although the research literature largely uses the original name.

References
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetishism
See also: http://www.cmj.org/periodical/PaperList.asp?id=LW9058 and jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/short/jc.2007-2155v1
(4) Table 2: An example of a DSD classification
Sex chromosome DSD’s include:
(A) 45,X (Turner syndrome and variants)
(B) 47,XXY (Klinefelter syndrome and variants)
(C) 45,X/46,XY (mixed gonadal dysgenesis, ovotesticular DSD)
(D) 46,XX/46,XY (chimeric, ovotesticular DSD)
46,XY DSD’s include:
(A) Disorders of gonadal (testicular) development
1. Complete gonadal dysgenesis (Swyer syndrome)
2. Partial gonadal dysgenesis
3. Gonadal regression
4. Ovotesticular DSD
(B) Disorders in androgen synthesis or action
1. Androgen biosynthesis defect (eg, 17-
hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase deficiency, 5a
reductase deficiency, StAR mutations
2. Defect in androgen action (eg, CAIS, PAIS)
3. LH receptor defects (eg, Leydig cell
hypoplasia, aplasia)
4. Disorders of AMH and AMH receptor (persistent
mullerian duct syndrome)
(C) Other
(eg, severe hypospadias, cloacal extrophy)
46,XX DSD’s include
(A) Disorders of gonadal (ovarian) development
1. Ovotesticular DSD
2. Testicular DSD (eg, SRY+, dup SOX9)
3. Gonadal dysgenesis
(B) Androgen excess
1. Fetal (eg, 21-hydroxylase deficiency, 11-hydroxylase
deficiency)
2. Fetoplacental (aromatase deficiency, POR)
3. Maternal (luteoma, exogenous, etc)
(C) Other (eg, cloacal extrophy, vaginal atresia, MURCS, other syndromes)
Source: Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders
I A Hughes, C Houk, S F Ahmed, P A Lee, LWPES/ESPE Consensus Group
(6) Germaine Greer's "The Whole Woman"
(7) “Because all Klinefelters that have a Y are male, whereas Turners, who have no Y, are females. So it's not a dosage or the number of X's, it's really the presence or absence of the Y.” Quote from Eric Vilain
Source of the above quote: When a Person Is Neither XX nor XY: A Q&A with Geneticist Eric Vilain
(Please note: It appears that the homochromosexuals who wrote the proposed amendment that defined a person as a man if a person had one Y chromosome had read Eric Vilain’s “research”.)
(8) Homosexual eugenics paper by J. Michael Bailey







Thursday, April 10, 2008

Sex versus Gender

Exposing medical violence and dishonesty
by Curtis E. Hinkle
March 29, 2008

Medical specialists complicate and erase intersex experience and visibility by insisting that sex is a biological fact and gender a social construct.

The first harm done to many intersexed infants is what is called "assigning a gender". In other words, the intersexed child is actually being assigned a "gender identity" (not a sex because the sex is considered to be "ambiguous"). However, the same specialists write that there is no clear understanding of how a child develops a "gender identity". Then after having assigned a "gender identity" to the intersexed child, the specialists choose the sex corresponding to the "gender identity" assigned and that is what they put as the sex on the birth certificate and other documents. If the medical specialists were logical in their use of the terms "sex" and "gender" (but this is illogical and that is why I do not accept that sex and gender are two distinct categories in a linguistic sense), they would refuse to put a "gender identity" on a birth certificate as the sex of the infant but that is precisely what they do. Therefore, the birth certificate of an intersexed child does not state the sex of the child; it is the child's "gender identity" as determined by the experts, not the children themselves.

Then all during their lives, people are concerned about the "gender identity" of the individual. It can become exasperating because each little difference detected can become enormously important and exaggerated as a sign of non-conformity to the gender identity imposed by the experts.

Then when one consults a physician, "gender identity" issues can become the focus rather than the real health problems that need to be attended to because we are perceived within a bi-gendered lens and if one does not agree with the "gender identity" discourse, then one is made to feel the problem is in our mind, not the mind of the physicians.

How many hours have been lost discussing gender issues with doctors instead of getting actual health care? How many times have we had to explain we are not in the doctor's office to talk about our identity but because our feet hurt, for example?

Navigating all this dishonest discourse throughout one's life saps one's energy and has done little if anything to improve the lives of intersexed children and adults.

If one asks the specialists what a "gender identity" is, one is often given a definition such as this:

Gender identity is a person's own sense of identification as male or female.

If gender identity is a person's own sense of identification, how can these same specialists justify assigning a "gender identity" to an intersexed child? How can these specialists predict the future and know the "person's own sense of identification"? One reads in their own protocols that they cannot predict someone's personal sense of identification as male or female. This is not scientific. This is dishonest. It is a hoax.

We are told that gender is social and that sex is biological. Then we are told that our sex (that is our legal sex classification) is really our "gender identity" which many of these same specialists state is not biological. Therefore, if "gender identity" is not a biological fact, why use this concept in place of the sex of the child on their birth certificate? This is because birth certificates which state the sex of an individual are using that term in a way which has redefined sex as a "gender identity", which proves that competence within biology is not what is being applied. This is a social exercise, a social construct. It is not about biology.

If other sciences used terms in this contradictory and dishonest manner, they would be exposed as not being scientific at all.

To state that gender is a social construct but that sex is a biological fact can at first appear logical but the actual use of these terms proves that this semantic distinction is not valid because the semantic field of the word "gender" overlaps and intersects the same semantic field as the word "sex" in English and it does this in medical discourse about the topic and in legal discourse also.

It is impossible to categorize all people into two distinct biological sexes. We are not even aware at this time of the degree to which sexual orientation and sex identity are linked with the sex development of an individual. However, we do know that these categories would not be as functional without a binary construct of sex and gender which is the fundamental principal justifying such categories.

Sex is a social construct and so is gender and often they are one and the same if you look closely at how medical and legal discourse are defining and categorizing people.

Why OII denounces transphobia and the pathologisation of intersex people

Now, I hope it is clear that it is not necessarily the word "gender" which bothers me. It is the notion that sex is a biological category and that gender is purely a social construct which I find troubling and inaccurate.

It is important to expose the dishonesty of what the experts are trying to tell us.

The sex of an individual is not really a biological fact as that term is used medically and legally and intersexed children prove that sex as used in medical and legal discourse is really an identity (not a biological reality) that is imposed on children.

However, the doctors admit that one cannot predict a child's identity or personal sense of self as a male or female. Nevertheless, this does not stop them from imposing a gender identity on the child and that becomes the SEX of the individual.

If doctors really are convinced that the "gender identity" of a person is the real sex of the individual (and it appears that the protocols in effect would confirm that they do in fact believe that this is the case, otherwise why put a "gender identity" as the sex of a person on a birth certificate?), then it would be logical to conclude that any person who is not in agreement with the identity imposed is better placed to declare their TRUE SEX since in essence we are dealing with an identity and not biological facts which can be substantiated.

It is not the word that causes so much harm. It is the dishonesty of how the specialists use this word which causes so much harm.

It is only the individual person who can determine their own sense of self and their identity and not a doctor. If one disagrees with the doctor's imposed "gender identity", one is not ill. The person who is violently imposing his own definitions and using his medical and legal power to erase and damage another person's most initmate sense of self is the one who is part of the problem and the society which would knowingly condone this needs to be questioned, challenged and eventually given the help it needs to enlarge its vision of human rights.

Sunday, March 09, 2008

Disorders of sex development: Sexist, Classist Eugenics

DSD (Disorders of sex development): a sexist, classist ideology based on eugenics

A brief exposé by Curtis E. Hinkle
March 9, 2008
© 2008

1) What is sexism?
2) What is eugenics?
3) Who controls the definitions?
4) Who is fit to be born?
5) Is our sex a disorder?

1) What is sexism?

Sexism can be considered from different perspectives, both intricately related one to the other, one based on discrimination itself and the other on the division of all humans into legal sex categories which is the fundamental tool used to perpetuate and justify the discrimination.

Discrimination against people which is based on their sex assignment as male or female, instead of their individual merits, is sexist. This discrimination is so prevalent in our societies that it appears natural because we assume that the underlying binary division of all people into male and female is also natural, but it is not. Intersex people prove that it is not and it can be argued rather convincingly that the erasure of intersex as a natural sex variation is a result of the basic sexism which is considered normal in our society. Unfortunately, sexism is "normal" because there are medical and legal norms which justify this sexism. However, the fact that it is "normal" does not mean it is natural.

The most basic form of sexism is the biological essentialism (1) which is used to divide all humanity into just two legal categories - male and female with all deviations defined as pathological and in need of medical intervention to "correct" their sex. There would be no reason to justify this division of all humanity legally and medically into just two categories (2) if we felt there were no fundamental differences between these two categories and there would be no need to pathologize all intersex people as disorders of sex development if this unnatural division of all humanity as male or female were not politically motivated. (3)

2) What is eugenics?

"Eugenics is the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)."
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, (c) Random House, Inc. 2006.

Eugenics has a very tragic, racist, classist history.(4) The nature of eugenics makes it a political ideology based on definitions of people which divide humanity into those who are fit and those who are unfit. The basic problem is that those who control the definitions are those who have political supremacy over disenfranchised populations. Denying the racist, sexist and classist history of eugenics is dangerous if one honestly wants to understand the political motivations behind eugenic movements.

In the 20th Century, abortion has been introduced as a tool for eugenic movements. This is very problematic because the conflation of women's rights with eugenics often obscures the underlying racism, sexism and classism involved in the justification of abortion as a eugenic tool. Both sides of this debate overlook the serious dangers and inequalities of women as a class. The pro-choice debate does not emphasize the lack of most women in the world to make a real choice because they are deprived of that power even when abortion is provided and this can often lead to the elimination of female fetuses. The pro-life debate fails to recognize the need for women to control their own bodies and have the right over reproductive decisions concerning their bodies.

Instead of dealing with the serious oppression of people based on race, sex and class, upper middle-class pro-choice models of abortion as the model for feminism assumes that women who are lacking almost all control of their reproductive rights can benefit from such a model. What can often happen is the choice to eliminate females and all deviations from male and female with only male births being favored.(5)

3) Who controls the definitions?

Those in charge of the definitions which determine who are male and female and whose sex is a genetic defect is a group of predominantly, Euro-centric male medical experts: the Lawson Wilkins Pediatrics Endocrine Society along with Eric Vilain and Alice Dreger both associated with the Intersex Society of North America (ISNA). This is the group which is responsible for the Chicago Consensus Statement on Management of Intersex Disorders which redefined intersex as a genetic defect and recommended the new "disorder" terminology with "intersex" being replaced by "disorders of sex development". (6)

This same group published the following consensus statement on CAH which recommends surgery on intersex infants between 2 and 6 months of age:
Consensus Statement on 21-Hydroxylase Deficiency from The Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society and The European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology (Joint LWPES/ESPE CAH Working Group)

4) Who is fit to be born?

Those who are closest to the ones who control the definitions. Let's be honest and stop trying to justify racism, sexism and this abuse of power over us just because those in charge of the definitions are powerful and have great influence around the world. We are not fit to be born because we do not look like them; we do not act like them and we are a threat to their two-sex system which keeps them in a privileged position. They are "fit" simply because they control the definitions of who is fit.

5) Is our sex, that is intersex, a disorder?

We in OII firmly reject the idea that our sex is a disorder and we therefore reject the pathological definition of our sex as a "disorder of sex development" or DSD. The real danger and disorders are the racism and sexism which are developing eugenic ideologies and technologies to deal with what are social problems. Instead of empowering and valuing sex variations, the solution is to eliminate us.

Open discussions about the abuse of power by those who control the definitions is one important way to confront the real problem - eugenics, Euro-centric racism and male patriarchal models of power which are at risk of collapse if the current binary male/female dichotomies are not firmly held as sacrosanct.

We in OII do not accept the current male/female binary categories imposed on all people in most countries as sacrosanct and hope that others will help us confront the political agenda of those who would eliminate us.


Footnotes:
(1) "Biological Essentialism: Biological essentialism refers to the idea that men and women are intrinsically different due to some internal essence. Biological essentialists argue that men and women are distinct from one another and that they are opposites. They claim that gender differences aren’t really differences in gender but that they reflect a biologically based difference that is consistent across cultures. Furthermore, biological essentialists stipulate that there is no variation in the expression of biologically essential characteristics."

(2) Project 1-0-1 intersex

(3) RACISM and SEXISM: A COLLECTIVE STRUGGLE: A MINORITY WOMAN'S POINT OF VIEW By Valerie Russell

(4) Brief history of eugenics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#History

(5) What Is Gendercide? http://www.gendercide.org/

(6) Alice Dreger and some other women who have great privilege within the two-sex system have played a prominent role in pathologizing sex variations. For more information: click here

Friday, February 29, 2008

Alice Dreger: The unethical ethicist?

By Curtis E. Hinkle
© 2008
February 29, 2008

Alice Dreger, the DSD activist, who bills herself as a bioethicist has over the past few years become mired by one ethical scandal after another. Just to mention a few of her scandals, let me start with what will be one of the major setbacks in intersex history. It was Alice Dreger who was one of the prime movers of the shift from “intersex” to DSD, “disorders of sex development”. She did this by consulting with doctors and determining what worked for them and consulted the intersex community after the change had been made. Quite unethical for an ethicist because there is practically no support for this replacement of the term “intersex” with “disorders of sex development” and the ensuing Consensus Statement (1) which approved this change of terminology which elaborated a set of protocols that are a major setback for intersex people with surgery being recommended between two and six months of age. (2) This was a scandal of historical proportions.

After controlling intersex activism for over a decade and leaving it in shambles, she decided to move on to transgender activism. And already she is becoming the same divisive “activist” in the transgender movement that she was in the intersex movement. She has begun by taking sides with the gatekeepers of the trans movement, just as she placed herself with the gatekeepers of the intersex community and then left us with a more pathological terminology and set of protocols based on intersex being a genetic defect. (3)

As she started her trans activism, many of us in the intersex movement saw the same pattern slowly emerge that had been her hallmark within the intersex movement – siding with proponents of a highly problematic, pathological definition of transsexualism and attacking any opponents who resisted the academic and discursive control she was usurping over their own right to self definition and in determining their own sociopolitical agenda without having to contend with another interloper who had no experiential understanding of trans issues.

All of a sudden she picked a fight with Andrea James and tried to prevent Ms. James from being allowed to speak at the university where Alice Dreger works and alleged she was afraid of Andrea James. It was quite odd that the organization which invited Ms. James to speak at Northwestern University where Dreger works was evidently not frightened by Andrea James. Dreger decided to use the Bush foreign policy model of a pre-emptive strike against anyone who might possibly be viewed as a threat and published “The blog I write in fear” (4) in which she brought up an unfortunate event that had happened a few years ago between her colleague J Michael Bailey and Andrea James. She alleged she was frightened of Andrea and that she should not be allowed to speak at the University. This is the strawman that has been used for years now to silence any discussion of the unethical behavior that Bailey and Dreger have been involved in. Instead of dealing with the facts of their own behavior, anyone who dares discuss the facts is automatically smeared with ad hominem attacks linking them to the serious mistake that Andrea James made a few years ago. Dreger even did this to me when I openly questioned her DSD model as a replacement for intersex. (5) Instead of dealing with what she was doing, Dreger sent out an e-mail alleging that I had teamed up with Andrea James, someone I didn’t know at the time, and warned intersex people that if they were not vigilant, the intersex movement would be destroyed. Well, that was already a fait accompli and it was Dreger who was instrumental in its destruction. Many of us are trying to rebuild and move on.

We later found out why Dreger was alleging she was so afraid of Andrea James. She was working at the same University as J Michael Bailey and she was writing an article in defense of his unethical behavior and she was going to include Andrea James in that article. It certainly would be good fodder for the article if she could have provoked Andrea to get more dirt on her to include in her upcoming “exposé” of the “facts” to suit her employer, Northwestern University.

Dreger then published a 60-page tome in defense of her colleague, J Michael Bailey and in that article she once again threw ethics out the window and simply gives Bailey another platform to justify having sex with research subjects: “there is nothing intrinsically wrong or forbidden about having sex with a research subject[….] Some of my colleagues have had sex with their research subjects, because it is not unusual to ask one’s romantic partner to be a subject” (Bailey, 2005).” Rather disturbing ethical standards that Dreger is disseminating in this tome in defense of her colleague. (6)

Finally, someone is challenging Dreger on her ethics and many of us in the intersex community feel it is high time. Robin Mathy has filed ethics complaints with the American Psychological Association against Dreger and Bailey. One of the allegations in the complaint centers on Dreger and Bailey having both expressed that having sex with a research subject is not inherently wrong. Robin Mathy has also filed a complaint with the Illinois Board of Examiners of Psychology against Bailey for allegedly misrepresenting himself as a psychologist. (7)

It does appear that Robin Mathy has a lot of facts to substantiate these allegations along with many others. Ethics? Alice Dreger’s ethics seem to be focused on what is best for her career and gaining access to more power, not helping the powerless which she now has a history of dismissing, silencing and abusing.

Notes:
(1) Consensus Statement on Management of Intersex Disorders

(2) This is a quote from the Same group that gave us the Consensus Statement on DSD's.

Consensus Statement on 21-Hydroxylase Deficiency from The Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society and The European Society for Paediatric Endocrinology Joint LWPES/ESPE CAH Working Group

Surgery is recommended at age 2-6 months:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Once a decision has been made to raise a newborn as female, surgery for those with virilized genitalia caused by CAH is recommended when the patient has a high proximal junction between the vagina and urethra (12, 13). Surgery on infants with ambiguous genitalia requires a high degree of expertise and should only be performed in centers with significant experience. Based on recent clinical experience, the recommended time for surgery is at age 2–6 months; although, at present, this is not universal practice. It is important to note that surgery at this stage is technically easier than at later stages."

You can download the complete Consensus Statement on CAH at:

(3) Alice Dreger: Disorders of Sex Development

(4) “The Blog I Write in Fear”. May 13, 2006.

(5) Email from Alice Dreger to some intersex activists

(6) “In his online self-defense piece, “Academic McCarthyism,” published in October 2005, Bailey countered with this: “her ‘complaint’ is not true. The alleged event never happened. If I ever needed to do so, I could prove this, but there is no reason why I should” (Bailey, 2005). Bailey’s reasoning for why he should not have to prove he didn’t have sex with Juanita was twofold: first, he “insist[ed] that Juanita was not a research subject” when she claimed they had sex; second, “there is nothing intrinsically wrong or forbidden about having sex with a research subject[….] Some of my colleagues have had sex with their research subjects, because it is not unusual to ask one’s romantic partner to be a subject” (Bailey, 2005).”
Dreger, Alice. 2007. The Controversy Surrounding The Man Who Would Be Queen: A
Case History of the Politics of Science, Identity, and Sex in the Internet Age. p. 43

(7) Debate resumes on methods of psych professor's research by Michael Gsovski
Issue date: 2/27/08
http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&ustory_id=c6222fa5-96dd-47ee-b912-c58a9874fbdf

Monday, February 04, 2008

DSD: North American Medical fascism and manufacturing consent

By Curtis E. Hinkle

One of the most important questions to ask concerning the controversy surrounding the term “DSD”, Disorders of sex development, as a replacement for intersex is a simple one. Why do we need to have a name at all? Why do we need to have a diagnosis at all? Other important questions include who is naming us and for what reasons? Does this have anything to do with us at all? Should it even concern us?

In the last several years, many people who are not intersexed have been working to come up with a new term to replace the term “intersex”? It is interesting that we in OII have found almost no intersex people that were actively involved in this search for a new term. We have found almost no intersex people who had previously been writing articles and scientific justifications for replacing the term intersex with the term “Disorders of Sex Development”. We therefore conclude that the search for a new term was something of intense importance to people who are not intersexed but of little or no importance to intersexed people themselves. The only exception that I can document is Cheryl Chase, the one intersexed person who co-authored the following article with Alice Dreger and Dreger’s husband, Dr. Aron Sousa.

“Changing the Nomenclature/Taxonomy for Intersex: A Scientific and Clinical Rationale”, Alice Dreger et al, Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism, 18. (729-733 (2005).


In this article, the authors propose replacing the term hermaphrodite and the 5-sex system which divides humans into females, males, true hermaphrodite, male pseudohermaphrodite and female pseudohermaphrodite with the term “disorders of sex differentiation” (later changed to disorders of sex development) because this would work better in a medical context. What is so problematic about this article which was seminal in the shift from intersex to DSD is that there is no challenge to the assumption that intersex variations need to have a medically accurate name at all. The whole article is based on the assumption that sex variations are indeed pathological and require treatment. However, the article gives no proof at all for such an assumption and that is the serious contradiction in the arguments put forward in the article. Any serious medical conditions that a person who is not standard male or female has are exactly the same medical conditions that standard males and females have. The more important question would have been to focus on medical conditions that actually do affect people who are intersex and explain how these might require slightly different medical treatments than in a person who is not intersexed. However, this article assumes that one’s sex variation is the disease to be treated and never challenges that assumption and it concludes by suggesting that one approach would be to use etiology-based diagnoses. (1)

For years both Dreger and Chase stressed that intersex was not a pathological condition but a biological variation. “Intersex is a socially constructed category that reflects real biological variation.” (2) If this is so, it is also obvious that the shape and size of one’s nose is also a biological variation just as the size and shape of one’s clitoris. If a person wishes to change the size and shape of one’s nose, that is available to them and there are surgeons who will do these operations for them. There is no group I am aware of that is coming up with an umbrella term to include all nose variations in the population which would make all these variations a medical pathology and which could justify changing the shape of noses without the consent of the person with the nose. Parents can still have cosmetic surgery on a child’s nose if they feel it will prevent their child from functioning well in society. There could be an argument made that nose shape and size could be more stigmatizing than the size of one’s clitoris or penis because we usually present ourselves in public with our noses exposed.

Despite the good intentions that are expressed in this article, the medical emergency that intersex supposedly represents is what is the focus for justifying the change of the terminology. In this article, the emergency now is coming up with a medical diagnosis which will classify all variations of sex development so that people with this “medical emergency” can get better treatment. But shouldn’t the more basic question be to ask why this is being treated at all? That is not the case.

Dreger’s article promotes the use of the old-time medical phrase “disorders of sexual differentiation" (later changed to “development”) – using the straw man of “hermaphroditism” as if it were the word being replaced (instead of intersex being the word they wanted to replace):

In conclusion, we suggest the language of ‘hermaphroditism’ and ‘pseudohermaphroditism’ be abandoned. One possible alternative . . . is to use instead . . . the umbrella term “disorders of sexual differentiation”. Such an approach would have the salutary effects of improving patient and physician understanding and reducing the biases that are inherent in the use of the current language of ‘hermaphroditism’. – Dreger et al.

That old medical terminology had been adopted in 2003 in the mission statement of "The Network on Psychosexual Differentiation" and the John Hopkins. It was that NICHD group of researchers, funded by NIH, who are behind the Northwestern/Penn State DSD Consortium that had hired Dreger:


It would appear that the John Hopkins Medical University (responsible for all the traumatizing experiments on intersex children by Dr. John Money and the theories he developed which continue to justify irreversible sex assignment surgeries) has a vested interest in protecting itself from the possible litigation that could have been directed against them and it was the John Hopkins Medical University which started using the "disorder" terminology even before the NICHD. It is also interesting to note that the author and central figure in this shift in terminology, Alice Dreger, is the associate editor of one of the official publications of the Johns Hopkins University Press. (3)

There seems to be a conflict of interest on Dreger’s part. And if you read her articles closely this conflict of interest will become more and more evident. What appears at first to be a move towards depathologizing intersex starts being seen for what it really is – a way of pinning down intersex and ALL variations of sex differentiation as an illness.

In a recent lecture at the Kinsey Institute that Alice Dreger entitled: "No Matter How You Slice It? Parsing Intersex", Dreger stated:

“A couple of people at my Kinsey talk pressed me about the terminology and asked me to work more on trying to find a new, better term. What about, for example, "variations of sex development," as some have suggested? Honestly, I don't see that term flying in the medical system; I've asked about it, and it doesn't go anywhere. Part of the reasonable fear among medical professionals is over-de-pathologizing sex anomalies. . .” (4)

Sophie Siedlberg responded to Dreger's pathological defense: "Reasonable fear of de-pathologizing sex anomalies? Like what is that supposed to mean? That doctors are upset because some people object to terminology that in law allows the doctors to slice, dice and rotate children on a spit or something?" (5)

Is there a need for name for sex variations at all? Many people will not feel there is and feel comfortable with the terms male and female but to others the term intersex appears helpful and has been working well for many of us. It is to be noted that no one is imposing this term on anyone. It is not a legally imposed sex and intersex activists are not working to impose this term on people in a medical context either. Nothing could be further from the truth. People born with sex variations are free to consult doctors for problems which affect their health but does that give them the right to work to impose medically defined pathologies on all people who are born with sex variations who see their body as a natural variation, not a medical emergency? The fact is that there are almost no intersex people involved in doing this. It is people like Dreger who is not intersex and medical doctors and parents who are behind this and we should hold them accountable and ask them why they want to humiliate us and pathologize us.


Footnotes:

1. Page 733. “Changing the Nomenclature/Taxonomy for Intersex: A Scientific and Clinical Rationale”, Alice Dreger et al, Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology & Metabolism, 18. (729-733 (2005).
3. According to the official site for the journal Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, the Associate Editors are Alan N. Schechter and Alice D. Dreger.
http://www.press.jhu.edu/journals/perspectives_in_biology_and_medicine/editorial.html

(4) Dreger, Alice. Why “Disorders of Sex Development”? (On Language and Life)
(5) Siedlberg, Sophia. Treestumps and Broomsticks. http://www.intersexualite.org/Siedlberg.html#anchor_12

Saturday, February 02, 2008

Elizabeth Reis defames and trivializes intersex people

I notice a critical flaw in Figure 4-A. The figure contradicts Dr. Dre’s (PhD) treatise entitled ‘Bitches ain’t shit’. In it is stated that “Bitches ain’t shit but hoes and tricks”. While you have correctly shown that ‘Bitches’ and ‘Shit’ are two discrete groups (i.e. that “Bitches ain’t shit”), you have incorrectly shown the class of “bitches” as existing partially outside of the groups “tricks” and “hoes”. The correct formulation of the theory would have “bitches” as the intersection of the two classes, with no section outlying. Keep in mind, bitches ain’t shit but hoes AND (not and/or) tricks.
http://www.complex.com/blogs/2007/09/10/droppin-science-on-gangsta-rap/
When I first read Elizabeth Reis' article justifying DSD as the best term for intersex, I immediately thought of this Venn diagram.

Below is the abstract of a recent article written by Elizabeth Reis, someone who is not intersex, who tries to justify the unjustifiable by thinking some clever little slight of hand will make all well with DSD terminology. No regard is given to intersex voices and our real dignity and right to speak for ourselves and to have an equal say in our lives and our own struggle for human rights. Most women don't like being called bitches and ho's and I don't appreciate this woman telling me that DSD is a good slur for me by pretending I can think it means divergence of sex development rather than disorder of sex development. DSD is DSD and Elizabeth Reis would do better to stop trivializing and pathologizing intersex people and our struggle for human rights and to start listening to us.

Divergence or disorder? the politics of naming intersex.
Author: Elizabeth Reis.
Source:Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 50.4 (Autumn 2007): p535(9). (3827 words) Reading Level (Lexile): 1580.
COPYRIGHT 2007 Johns Hopkins University Press

ABSTRACT The conditions once known under the umbrella terms intersex and hermaphroditism are now generally being called disorders of sex development in medical settings. The terms might seem synonymous, but in fact there are significant differences with controversial consequences. Hermaphroditism, an older term that can still be found in many medical writings, is vague, demeaning, and sensationalistic, conjuring mythic images of monsters and freaks. In the 1990s, activists advocated intersex to describe discordance between the multiple components of sex anatomy, but that word alienated many parents of affected children, as it suggests a self-conscious alternative gender identity and sexuality. Disorders of sex development also refers to intersex, but it deemphasizes the identity politics and sexual connotations associated with intersex, avoids the degradation associated with hermaphrodite, and instead highlights the underlying genetic or endocrine factors that cause prenatal sex development to take an unusual path. I argue that using disorder is problematic, because it implies medical conditions in need of repair, when some intersex anatomies, though atypical, do not necessarily need surgical or hormonal correction. I advocate a less pathologizing new term, divergence of sex development, that might reduce some of the conflict over nomenclature and satisfy intersex people, their parents, and their doctors.

1) Elizabeth Reis cites only 1 intersex person who is opposed to this stigmatizing terminology. Her article is based on doctors, specialists and other non-intersexed people and what THEY think is best for us.

2) Elizabeth Reis uses a lot of ideas from our own website but never mentions all the hundreds of people in OII and their opposition to this humiliating treatment and the exclusion of almost all intersex people in coming up with DSD terminology and the subsequent protocols based on this change of terminology.

I am left with the impression that Elizabeth Reis is nothing but another feminist, norm-born woman wanting to speak for the intersex community in order to try to justify the unjustifiable and further marginalize us because we don't fit her definition of what it means to be fully human capable of speaking for ourselves. We are not a divergence; we are not a disorder and she would feel just as offended if we wrote such offensive articles speaking on behalf of women and why they should be a called a DIVERGENCE FROM MALE but not a woman.

I am not convinced this woman has come very far in her feminist principles. I would suggest that she stop speaking for us and listen to us - not just one or two intersex people who agree with her. - Curtis E. Hinkle, founder of the Organisation Intersex International

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Articles by Curtis E. Hinkle

For a list of articles in English written by the founder of the Organisation Intersex International:

http://www.intersexualite.org/Curtis.html#anchor_14

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Against sexists in “Blackface”

by Curtis E. Hinkle
© 2008
Translated and adapted from the French
French available at:
http://www.intersexualite.org/Curtis.html#anchor_27

Video depicting blackface performances and iconography and the implications of the commercialization of such stereotypes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kc4EwD5hoA

Changing one’s body does not necessarily change the identity of the individual in the body. This concept is essential to intersex activism. Otherwise, early surgical interventions on intersex infants would be easier to justify and rationalize.

Studying intersex in an academic setting does not change one’s identity either.

I would like to briefly discuss certain sexist tendencies that I do not personally like and I see a lot of commonalities between these particular sexist tendencies and certain elements from the racist history of the United States involving the tradition of performing in blackface.

I often see intersections between the struggles against racism and sexism. Those who are intersexed, victims of a brutal sexist system which often robs us of both our body and our identity, often need to be aware of the risks of sexist movements and their appropriation of our own visibility because there are many risks involved in our struggle for visibility in a world where we are not allowed to exist as human beings with full human rights.

This was true of African American slaves also. There were people who felt they had only the best of intentions who ultimately ended up creating some of the most damaging racist elements of American culture which did not help end racism despite all their good intentions. They actually reinforced the very slavery of the individuals they were trying to help by elaborating an artistic representation of stereotypes which are still very deeply rooted in the American consciousness. Images, theatrical performances, and music are extremely effective forms of communication and almost all propaganda is reinforced by an arsenal of iconographic representations which serve to embed the message more concretely than words alone can.

It is important to point out that I am specifically referring to artistic, academic and exhibitionistic iconographies which are focused on the “freak” body of intersex people and not the personal choices of intersex people themselves concerning their own clothing, what aspects of their own appearance they which to emphasize in a more positive manner or their own conceptualization of the intersexuality. I am specifically limiting this comparison to performances and other iconographic representations, both artistic and academic, which are intended to help those concerned, the intersexed.

“Performers with their faces blackened with burnt cork or blackface started appearing on the American stage towards the end of the 17th Century; they usually represented servants whose role was only to provide a brief moment of comic relief [1] with the intention nevertheless to make people laugh by mimicking the “Blacks of the Plantation”. It is important to note that the birthplace of the blackface minstrels was not the Deep South but the abolitionist North.” [2]

People often mistakenly believe that blackface performances have their roots in the Deep South of the United States. “In 1922 there were still serious debates in the pages of the New York Herald about who were the best actors depicting Black people, Whites or Blacks themselves. And we must remember that the minstrel was born in the anti-slavery environment of the North in the most sophisticated and most cosmopolitan city of America.” [3]

Those who started doing these performances were White people who wanted to help slaves and their ideas about Blacks were that they were content, obliging and musical, etc. They started performing in blackface but what they actually ended up doing was the commercialization and marketing of stereotypes intended primarily for the White public who were the consumers of the productions and it was the White public which controlled the market. Ultimately, African Americans themselves started performing in blackface in order to present their own talent to a public which was overwhelmingly White: a reinforcement of their own invisibility.

In my opinion, the same mechanisms are in play when a person enlarges their clitoris and becomes exhibitionistic and starts talking about intersex issues as if their choice for clitoral enlargement somehow helps them understand intersex issues. The same mechanisms are in play when an academic feels she has the right to help us without even consulting us and who writes protocols full of demeaning terms with an abject focus on genetic defects. These are all stereotypes, whether artistic or academically generated. The important point is that they are NOT generated for and by the people most directly affected, the intersexed themselves.

No matter how much the Whites wanted to help, putting on blackface and speaking for Blacks did not make them Black. It was racist. The same applies to certain help from non-intersexed people. No matter what they do, they are not intersexed and their help often ends up simply reinforcing the iconography of stereotypes already prevalent for intersexed people. Sexism sells just as racism does because the consumers who control the market and the production of stereotypical images, pathological diagnoses, etc. are not us. It is them.

[1] http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Shakki/Traduc

[2] D'Emett Miller à Eminem : Chanteurs blancs, coeurs noirs ?
http://orta.dynalias.org/archivesrouge/article-rouge?id=4460

[3] Blackface :au confluent des voix mortes par Nick Tosches p. 19
Éditions Allia, Paris, 2003.

Friday, December 07, 2007

Support Groups

Terms such as "abnormal", "disorder" and "dysfunction" reinforce negative stigmas that can contribute to negative sense of self. - Esther Morris Leidolf, http://www.mrkh.org/

Support groups are the best resource for information and emotional support. Patients usually find them on their own, or long after treatment. Some groups are offered in hospitals--gatherings that are organized by patients--and also on-line. Some groups are closely moderated while others are not. The common theme is that without each other we would be doomed to a life of ignorance, isolation and shame. These groups are where the experts are found. They are the survivors, the researchers, and provide the follow-up so desperately needed. Support groups offer patients and families a chance to hear from adults with real life experiences. This is what the survivors have taught us:

To read the complete article:
http://www.intersexualite.org/support_groups.html

Monday, September 11, 2006

DSD - Is there really a consensus?

We in OII have been interested in the new term which those who feel they speak for us are now imposing on us. Just as our sex was imposed on us without our consent, now the experts and DSD activists are imposing pejorative terminology on us as our new identity. Was there really any consultation of those directly affected by this new pejorative identity label? It appears there was not. Most of us do not identify as disordered nor do we feel that our sex is disordered.

You can find information here about how we feel:
http://tinyurl.com/pzl52

Scroll down and you will see letters from intersex activists about DSD on the following site:
http://adc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/91/7/554
Very interesting that one of the activists in favor of this new identity label is not intersexed but a parent and a doctor herself. The guidelines for OUR "management" are written for these two groups - doctors and parents. They offer no manual for US.

The Organisation Intersex International did a survey:

http://tinyurl.com/n2jyq

DSD Survey results thus far:

http://tinyurl.com/p9h8c

Friday, August 18, 2006

Disordering the lives of children


Photo: Leading DSD expert




We are no longer hermaphrodites. We are no longer intersexed. We are all men and women with disorders of sex development according to many of the medical experts who have managed our lives over the past decades. We now have a new Consortium for the Management of Disorders of Sex Development and they are proposing to manage the lives of future children born with this disorder. What are the risks involved with this change in terminology? I think there are many.

Complete article:
http://tinyurl.com/pt467

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

Pathological (hetero)sexism and the medicalisation of sex in children


Intersex – The sex that dare not speak its name

It is hardly a newsflash that we live in a sexist society. However, just when we think we might be making progress in our struggle for equality and dignity, we are sometimes surprised at the backlash and the political power behind it. We have seen evidence of this powerful (hetero)sexist machinery in the United States just recently with the announcement by ISNA, the Intersex Society of North America, concerning its embrace of the term “disorder of sex development”. This term is supposedly better for children than the term “intersex”, according to this US group.

Complete text:
http://tinyurl.com/pd5k8

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

OII and diversity


Organisation Intersex International
www.intersexualite.org
Note from President

I will not take public positions for or against certain members or groups associated with OII. As president, I feel it is my responsibility to let people say what they feel is important to them, not to publicly agree or disagree with them. My own positions on issues will be found in the articles I have written. Others are free to disagree and be heard. There are too many different ways to be intersex for any one person to speak for the intersex community in general. I cannot speak for the intersex community in general, only a certain segment of that community. Other intersex people have different experiences and perspectives from mine. They have a right to be heard, even when some of their views may not appeal to certain people or groups.

I often receive inquiries about certain essays or opinions on OII's web site. Often the person writing is assuming that intersex is an identity, which it is for some people, but OII is not an organisation for those who identify as intersex but for those who are simply intersexed, regardless of identity and for our allies, many of which can disagree among themselves. OII welcomes allies from all communities but the fact that these different communities have disagreements among themselves is not an issue that we feel we should resolve. We simply are very happy to see that many communities find that they share the same goals of human rights and of combating sexism that OII does.

Questions concerning opinions of transsexuality, homosexuality, heterosexuality, gender identity disorder and the disagreements about opinions expressed on these topics are not easy for me to answer except from my own point of view. My opinions on these topics will not reflect those of others. Members are free to have diverse opinions and also opinions which might not be politically correct to some people.

There is a rich diversity of opinion among the different members. No one person speaks for OII. All members do.

The opinions of one person or group do not mean that OII does or does not support a certain group or community. The fact that there are disagreements among the LGBT community or that there are disagreements among feminists is not central to OII's focus. For OII to get too involved in resolving disagreements over trans issues, lesbian issues, feminist issues, gay issues, etc. would simply divert OII from its primary focus - intersex visibility and human rights regardless of identity. Intersex people will have a myriad of opinions on all these topics. The point of OII is to let them express their own opinions. We are only beginning to have any voice. To censor a very small, marginalized group because some of its members do not express views which are politically correct to certain other identity groups or other political movements is not the goal of OII. Our goal is letting intersex people have not one voice, but many voices.

Thanks for your support and for listening to us.

In solidarity,
Curtis E. Hinkle
President, OII
Organisation Intersex International
www.intersexualite.org

Sunday, April 09, 2006

Hermaphrodite Kisses


Hermaphrodite Kisses

I look at you for the first time
You lower your eyes, the small timid guy
And slowly you smile and I take your hand
In mine – two hermaphrodite hands

I take you in my arms and press you against me
You the little guy with porcelaine skin
Soft as velvet – it gives me the shivers
And me the tall girl with a beard

I feel you finally collapse in my arms
Our two bodies sing in unison
I place my lips on yours
Two electric bodies – Souls sparkling

A long kiss, one we had waited so long for
Between two hermaphrodites who finally find each other
And I whisper softly in your ear
I adore boys who are girls…

Who love girls who are boys.

Curtis E. Hinkle