you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tea_Or_Coffee[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You thought wrong.

How is intersex not a disorder when there is something wrong with the way their chromosomes, and genitals are? How do you define a disorder that intersex doesn't count as a disorder?

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I suppose you can call it a disorder of sexual development. I’m saying most people don’t. I’m saying you’re the only person I’ve see phrase it this way. Most people refer to it as intersex condition(s), not disorder(s). It’s one of those things where a term can be, at it’s base, technically correct, but not really a term most people use. But i think it could also depend on the specific intersex condition. As I said, I’m not intersex, so I won’t speak for them. But I do think it’s odd that you’re so focused on this one part of what I said, when I addressed your whole post.

Also- there’s nothing “wrong” with their chromosomes or their genitals.

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Uuuh, yes, it absolutely is a disorder of physical development. In what universe is having a faultily developed reproductive system not a disorder of sexual development? This shouldn't even be controversial.

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Depends what you mean by "faultily developed."

[–]adungitit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As in, not capable of serving the reproductive function for which the entire organ exists in the first place because it literally didn't physically develop properly.