Organisation Intersex International - USA

Ambiguous Medicine and Sexist Genetics

2008-08-18T05:03:00.001-07:00

Ambiguous Medicine and Sexist Genetics: A Critique of the DSD Nomenclature

By M. Italiano, M.B.B.S. (A.M.) and Curtis E. Hinkle

Online at: http://www.intersexualite.org/sexist_genetics.html

Many intersex persons around the world and their allies are concerned about the new nomenclature, DSD or “Disorders of Sex Development”, which has been endorsed by the Chicago Consensus (1) to replace the term “intersex”. We believe that the categories proposed are not only demeaning, but also scientifically flawed.

The age of chromosomes

The DSD nomenclature uses chromosomes, instead of gonads, as the most important classifier of an individual's sex, such as “46,XY DSD” and “46,XX DSD”. This is no more helpful than using male pseudohermaphroditism or female pseudohermaphroditism which was based on gonads. (2) Instead of male pseudohermaphroditism and female pseudohermaphroditism, the new DSD nomenclature proposes “46, XY DSD” and “46, XX DSD” as replacements for the former taxonomy.

Furthermore, what was called true hermaphroditism is now dichotomized to fit more neatly within the binary. True hermaphroditism used to be called “true” because it meant that an individual had both ovarian and testicular tissue and gonads (ovaries and testicles) were considered to be the “true” determiner of one’s sex. Of course the word "true" was problematic because it suggested that all other forms of “hermaphroditism" were not legitimate, only “pseudo conditions”. Also, using the term “hermaphrodite” as a word to describe a person with an intersex variation has often been criticized as insulting and inaccurate. However, by replacing true hermaphroditism with "ovotesticular DSD", we still have another problem. The DSD nomenclature now wishes to divide "ovotesticular DSD" (formerly true hermaphroditism) into “46, XY ovotesticular DSD”, “46, XX ovotesticular DSD”, or “chromosomal DSD” (of “46,XX/46,XY” chimerism or “45, X/46,XY” mosaic types). In effect, it gives an individual in the latter case two types of DSD, an “ovotesticular DSD”, and a “chromosomal DSD”. Also, we see the division based on chromosomes, which again exposes the preeminence of chromosomes as the “true” markers of an individual’s sex. Further, by combining “ovostesticular DSD” with a chimeric or mosaic karyotype, as it does, it also fails to provide a clear classification of so-called “ovotesticular DSD” which has 3 or more cell line types, isochromosomes, inversions, or ring chromosomes in the karyotype.

For individuals who have both 46,XX in some cells and 46,XY in other cells, and who are referred to as having a "chromosomal DSD" of "46,XX/46,XY(chimerism)" type, it is not uncommon for them to have male anatomy only (3) or female anatomy only (4) and they may also be fertile. In this new nomenclature they would be “diagnosed” as having a "chromosomal DSD" despite any practical relevance for them. Furthermore, although the DSD nomenclature is intended to be representative of congenital conditions, there are individuals who have become 46,XX/46,XY because their twin’s cells make up part of their own karyotype (5), or because an individual who is 46,XX received a bone marrow donation from someone who is 46,XY, as well as by many other means (6). In fact, a pregnancy may also lead to "false positives" for a DSD since fetal cells end up in a woman’s bloodstream. (5)

Likewise, individuals with a 45,X/46,XY karyotype are listed as having a “chromosomal DSD”, but with a parenthetical “mixed gonadal dysgenesis” or “ovotesticular” DSD. This is also confusing since many 45,X/46,XY individuals do NOT have mixed gonadal dysgenesis or ovotesticular tissue. Again, some have only typical male or female anatomy (some being fertile as such), and the XO cells are known to disappear during various stages of development. (7) Thus, predicting this type of “chromosomal DSD” in prenatal screening has been demonstrated to be hampered by a high rate of erroneous results, has provided unnecessary cause for alarm (by projecting birth defects which do not exist), has led to unwanted elective abortion, and is considered a serious problem in clinical genetics. (8)

Another problem is that the DSD proponents have misunderstood basic genetics (or intentionally distorted the information) and have assumed that XY chromosomes indicate that testicular tissue is expected. This assumption leads to another error in the new taxonomy because when gonadal dysgenesis is classified as a “46,XY DSD”, (see Table 2 in reference 1) DSD proponents refer to it (parenthetically) as "testicular dysgenesis". This is misleading and ambiguous because many individuals with 46,XY gonadal dysgenesis actually have OVARIAN dysgenesis. (9) It has been known for over 30 years now that in the presence of an unaltered Y chromosome, but in the absence of substances which would cause testicular differentiation and development, that ovaries start to form, not testicles. (reviewed in ref. 9). It is therefore deceptive to classify 46,XY gonadal dysgenesis as 46,XY testicular dysgenesis because testicular dysgenesis is the result on some occasions but at other times the result is ovarian dysgenesis. The type of treatment indications for dysgenetic testicular tissue may differ from that of dysgenetic ovarian tissue, and thus may unnecessarily confuse clinicians. Furthermore, the preeminence of chromosomes in this taxonomy is apparent and the idea that XY chromosomes somehow are the real “male” sex marker is the result of sexist genetics which produces more ambiguous medicine.

A basic problem with the DSD nomenclature is that it divides all the “disorders” into groups based on what are erroneously known as “sex chromosomes”. (10) This sexist interpretation of genetics, typical throughout this new nomenclature, leads to ambiguous medicine because there are individuals who have male anatomy only but have what appears to be XX chromosomes and are diagnosed as having a "46,XX DSD". Likewise, there are individuals who have female anatomy with what appears to be XY chromosomes and are diagnosed as having a "46,XY DSD". If these apparent XY individuals have a piece of the Y chromosome missing, (such as would include the SRY testis determining gene) they are still referred to as having a “46,XY DSD”, which is factually impossible since they are not XY, but X plus only part of the Y. Likewise, someone who is called XY (but in reality has an extra copy of an X chromosomal gene called DAX1) is also put in the category of having a "46,XY DSD", even though this is impossible, since they are not XY, but are instead X (PLUS another piece of an X)+Y. Likewise, individuals who appear to be XX, but are actually XX (PLUS the Y chromosome-specific SRY gene) are listed as having a "46,XX DSD" and a disorder of gonadal (ovarian) development, both of which are technically inaccurate. The fact that the DSD proponents (1) have put a note next to some conditions which indicates whether a deletion or addition of some X or Y chromosomal material exists, further demonstrates the inconsistency of their listing these conditions in the binary categories of “46,XY DSD” or “46, XX DSD” and not that of “chromosomal DSD.” In these regards, the DSD terminology is in violation of the principles and accepted diagnostic nomenclature used by clinical and molecular cytogeneticists. (11) Why didn't the DSD proponents put these in the "chromosomal DSD category"? One apparently needs an entire extra "sex chromosome" or to be lacking one, in order NOT to be put in the binary "EITHER XX or XY" category.

The DSD nomenclature is ambiguous and sexist in its understanding of genetics and it appears that this is necessary in order to preserve an "artificial binary". People who have portions of the X or Y chromosome missing or added are neither XX nor XY. The DSD system again here is flawed. Technically, CAIS individuals do not have a so-called "46,XY DSD" (even though the proponents state that they do) because the androgen receptor gene on the X chromosome is altered so that, in fact, they are only "X"Y. The androgen receptor is certainly involved in sex development. Thus if it is not there or is altered, it is ambiguous and misleading to call these individuals XY. It is equally ambiguous and misleading to call CAIS individuals “genetic males”. Yes, they have the SRY gene and a typical Y chromosome, but the X linked gene sequences for androgen "action" are not something that they "have". The same is true for an XY individual who has a female anatomy only, unaltered X and Y chromosomes, but an alteration on one of the many genes on one of the so-called "non sex chromosomes" (autosomes) which are certainly sex determining.

Sophia Siedlberg, Genetics Advisor to the Organisation Intersex International, came up with a polygenic model which explained the role of genes, not chromosomes, in sex determination. (12) This model has been misappropriated by others who don't know how to interpret it correctly. We can be quite sure, that barring an environmental cause (such as a teratogen), if we have an XY individual who does not appear to be a male, but instead appears female or intersex, that this person CANNOT be a “genetic male”, “chromosomally a male”, “genetically a male” and vice versa for individuals who have XX chromosomes. How do we know this? By the simple rule of basic genetics, that

GENES (+ environment) = PHENOTYPE (observable trait)

Thus, the DSD model based on "sex chromosomal" divisions has failed. By using the umbrella term “development”, it has also misapplied the knowledge base from the field of (sex) “differentiation” and conflated it with that of “development”. (13) It is ambiguous and sexist (in that it prescribes what sex one should be and not what sex one is and it perpetuates gender and sexist stereotypes based on chromosomes). It promotes confusion and oppression. It is NOT scientific. It simply uses scientific terminology in such a way that is confuses those who have little knowledge of genetics and biology. In so doing, it victimizes intersex people while offering “unlimited immunity" to medical and psychological professionals who continue FORCED sex assignments, FORCED sex reassignments, and FORCED gender expression expectations.

DSD makes the central health issue one’s sex

A second big problem with the DSD Consensus is that it largely ignores the health issues of intersexed individuals. With its emphasis on “sex” divisions based on chromosomes, they have persons with non-intersexed conditions like labial adhesions, cloacal exstrophy of the bladder and absent penis in an otherwise typical male, (or absence of a vagina in an otherwise typical female), mixed in with endocrine conditions, such as congenital adrenal hyperplasia, or mixed in with other organ system conditions, such as Smith-Lemli-Opitz Syndrome, and Turner's syndrome. These are then categorized as "sex development disorders", thus taking this "distant commonality" of one symptom, i.e., sex, and placing all of these disparate conditions as a disorder of one’s sex, while the predominant health issues become categorically "secondary" and likely to be ignored by clinicians.

DSD lacks clinical relevance

Even without considering the fact that the DSD Consensus largely ignores health issues, its taxonomy is in many cases irrelevant for the purposes of clinicians, especially those with subspecialties. An XX male with testes, a penis, and no female reproductive organs, who finds out at the age of 30 that his chromosomes are atypical after an infertility check, is in the same category as an otherwise typical female with ovaries and a uterus who has vaginal atresia. Both have a “46,XX DSD”. The same holds true for a male, typical in every way but with isolated hypospadias (classified as having a “46,XY DSD”), whose clinician finds that they have given their prior patient, an XY female with streak ovaries, uterus, and vagina who has given birth after embryo donation the same diagnostic classification of “46,XY DSD”. Again, ambiguous diagnoses lead to ambiguous treatment implications and vice versa. This is ambiguous medicine.

Gender conformity based on sexist genetics

With disorders of sex development, which sounds like “sexual development” (and can be confused with psychosexual development or psychosexual disorders), we now see a pathologizing of gender, gender identity, gender role, sexual orientation, and its ties to (re)assignment. People with a so-called DSD, especially in the binary XX or XY categories, are expected to conform in the above categories according to a binary gender expression, as indicated by the expectations of the DSD category, as well as the whim of the person who enforces the assignment or re-assignment. Those who reject such enforcement can be labeled mentally disordered, and treatment can be instituted or re-instituted at the whim of professionals, and this can be enforced legally.

DSD is about ambiguous medicine, sexist genetics, body control, and mind control. It certainly is not a client centered consensus statement. The fact that almost no intersex people had input into this consensus is glaringly evident.

In effect, we have moved from the “age of gonads” to the “age of chromosomes” even though it has been established that "sex chromosomes" as portrayed do not determine one’s sex. (10) This is based on prescriptive notions about genetics, not a descriptive understanding of the role of chromosomes in sex determination. Genes, not "sex chromosomes", determine sex, and most of the genes involved are not on the X and Y chromosomes. They are on the autosomes.

It appears to the authors of this article that the DSD nomenclature misinterprets genetics based on a sexist, binary male/female model and in so doing, it has erroneously pathologized and stigmatized intersex people in order to try to preserve the heterosexist male/female hierarchies that justify the oppression of many classes of people, not just those who are intersexed.

REFERENCES

1) Hughes, I.A. et al. Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders. J. Ped. Urol., 2006, 3:148-162.

2) DamianiI, D. & Guerra-Júnior, G. As novas definições e classificações dos estados intersexuais: o que o Consenso de Chicago contribui para o estado da arte? Arq Bras Endocrinol Metabol. 2007, 51: 013-7.

3) Gencik, A. et al. Chimerism 46,XX/46,XY in a phenotypic female. Hum. Genet., 1980, 55: 407-408.

4) Sudik, R. et al. Chimerism in a fertile woman with a 46,XY karyotype and female phenotype: Case Report. Hum. Rep., 2001, 16: 56-58.

5) Schoenle, E. et al. 46,XX/46,XY Chimerism in a Phenotypically Normal Man. Hum. Genet., 1983, 64: 86-89.

6) Ford, C.E. Mosaics and Chimaeras. British Med. Bull, 1969, 25:104-109.

7) Chang, H.J. et al. The phenotype of 45,X/46,XY mosaicism: an analysis of 92 prenatally diagnosed cases. Amer. J. Hum. Genet., 1990, 46: 156-167.

8) Robinson, A. et al. Prognosis of prenatally diagnosed children with sex chromosome aneuploidy. Am J. Med. Genet., 1992, 44: 365-368.

9) Wachtel S.S. & Simpson J.L. Sex Reversal in the Human. In Wachtel S.S. (Ed.) Molecular Genetics of Sex Determination., 1994, 287-309. Academic Press, Inc.

10) Italiano, M The Scientific Abuse of Genetics and Sex Classifications. Manuscript published July 17, 2008 © Organisation Intersex International.

11) Schaffer, L.G. & Tommerup, N. ISCN 2005: An International System for Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature (2005): Recommendations of the International Standing Committee on Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature., 2005. Karger, S.C. Publ.

12) Siedlberg, S. The Gender Genital Gene Genie. Manuscript published 2001.

13) Italiano, M. Some problems with the new terminology for intersex. Manuscript published July 13, 2008 © Organisation Intersex International.

Mutilations or non-consensual normalization treatments?

2008-04-18T02:53:00.000-07:00

By Curtis E. Hinkle, Founder of OII

Available on OII's website: Click here

We have been asked why OII's Official Position on Health Care does not mention mutilations. There are many reasons for this. Most intersex activism has been focused on just denouncing surgery (basically feminizing surgery), while insisting on a gender assignment as soon as possible. However, this does not seem to have helped intersex infants and adults. As a matter of fact, we are now faced with a more pathological definition of intersex as a genetic defect (the real goal of the new DSD terminology is to classify all intersex variations by their genetic etiology) and non-consensual treatments are more justifiable now with the new terminology of “disorders of sex development” than when intersex activism began in the United States.

Instead of insisting on a gender identity assignment as quickly as possible, OII is convinced that it would be better to inform the parents of their child's physical difference in such a way that they will be able to make informed decisions about the real health needs of their child (and not all this focus on which gender identity is best for the child which is what we are doing now). Understanding the intersex variation and the anatomical, endocrinological and other physical differences are very important and this can be very difficult for parents who are usually not specialists in genetics or anatomy. They need help to manage the health care decisions concerning their child and understanding their child's body is what is important – not spending weeks deciding what gender identity is most appropriate. This wastes precious time and it makes the parents feel their child is so different that they can be overwhelmed, shocked and confused.

Once the parents are able to understand the intersexed body of their child and the particular intersex variation, that is the physical state of their child, it is important to stress to the parents that from a psychological and socio-cultural perspective, their child is like any other child. And this is why it is important that doctors be given the freedom to make TEMPORARY gender assignments because we do not understand the process of gender identity development and trans adults prove that we cannot predict a gender identity. The parents need support and help in understanding that a child that is classified as intersexed is not that different from other children – that intersexuality is a physical characteristic and that all children whether they are categorized as intersex or not face the same dilemma because the sex development process is so complex and there are so many factors involved that sex can never be understood clearly as a false dichotomy of just male or female. There are numerous ways that the sex of any individual could be different from just one of these categories and there will never be clear divisions between the two categories. Doctors would be more honest in stating that they are not assigning a SEX by explaining that what they are really doing is assigning a GENDER identity and the reason for this is to help the child integrate into the current socio-cultural system which is for the moment bi-gendered. This is why it is crucial that the child be allowed to be involved in the process because the point is to help the child best fit into the system and OII hopes that the system will eventually evolve to accept more gender variations and diversity.

At present, because of the way intersex children are treated, the parents are led to think that their children are very DIFFERENT from other children and that is not true. There is a physical difference and it is important to understand that in order to take care of the child's health, but taking care of the child's health should also include taking care of the child's emotional well-being and in order to do that the parents should understand that psychologically and socially their child is in the same situation as all other children and that is :

1) there are only two genders currently accepted

2) there is no way to predict the gender identity of any child, intersexed or not

If one starts constantly using the word “mutilation” in such a context, this could limit the choices of the child and the parents. There are many reasons OII prefers not to use that word in the official position while leaving it to individuals affected to use that term when it applies to their own experience. Instead, we prefer the term "non-consensual normalization treatments".

1) There are operations that are necessary for the health of the child, for example when there are serious urinary problems. There are other reasons also and the parents should not be concerned so much about mutilations as normalization treatments which are not necessary for the health of the child. At each step, the parent should be free to ask if the treatment is for normalization only or for real physical health concerns.

2) OII was contacted by a few people who were born with cloacal exstrophy and some had photos and they felt it was irresponsible to condemn surgeries in their case.

3) The problem is not always the surgery itself; it is the timing of the surgeries in many cases which makes them problematic. If you make generalizations and just denounce all surgery (and for the most part the US intersex movement has basically spent most of its time denouncing only feminizing surgeries which OII has found to be no more troubling than masculinizing surgeries), this can undermine a panoply of technologies that are already available which the child could eventually have access to in order to help them affirm their own identities. There is a place for normalization treatments if desired and those should be timed so that the child and parents can help make the decisions.

4) This is why psychological care can be important in helping the child express their “true face” to the world and in helping the parents deal with the unknown which can be a severely traumatic shock for them.

5) OII works with people on all continents and we have noticed that it is principally people who live in more affluent regions who denounce “mutilations” (principally feminization surgeries). Almost all intersexed people who contact OII from less affluent regions have contacted us because they do NOT have access to treatments, surgeries and counseling.

OII also prefers the term non-consensual normalization treatments because:

1) This term includes hormone therapy and if one listens closely to those who have been subjected to hormone therapy without informed consent, it is obvious that this is just as mutilating to many of them as surgeries are to some other people.

2) It is very difficult to get the general public to understand that virilizing surgeries can be even more mutilating because genital mutilation has become a term too closely associated with feminist discourse and the surgeries involved in virilizing an infant are often dismissed by such discourse because of the assumption that anyone would prefer to be a male and therefore this could never be a "mutilation". OII denounces that as sexist and very damaging to understanding the serious problem of infant virilization without consent.

3) OII respects our trans allies and to many of them these treatments are NOT mutilation (and they are also not perceived as mutilations by many intersex people either if they are given the right to an informed choice.)

If OII makes the same mistakes as those that have been made in the past and stresses our DIFFERENCES from others in an attempt to make clear boundaries among different identity categories (for example to find clear boundaries between trans and intersex, between homosexuality and intersex, etc), this will not bring progress. This reduces us to a rubbish heap of chromosomal, hormonal and genetic definitions (such as DSD or Disorders of Sex Development) which do not help us understand the “true face” of a child. On the contrary, such definitions give the impression that these markers define the child and determine their future and we know that they are not reliable predictors of the child's future.

OII is not in favor of an identity movement for people who are born with this physical difference that is another social construct called intersex. OII is an association that is in favor of human rights for those who are born with bodies that are not defined as standard for male or female and instead of emphasizing what we do not have in common with others, we wish to emphasize what we do share – our humanity and it is for this reason that we need as many allies as possible who are willing to think beyond identity politics.

OII is an organization which campaigns in favor of human rights for people born with intersex variations regardless of their identity or sexual orientation. We are not using the word “intersex” as an identity but merely as a descriptor for bodies which are not standard for male or female under current norms. The history of intersex has been one of assimilation and erasure. It is important that we speak clearly about intersex variations while taking into consideration as many different perspectives as possible from those actually affected in order to build bridges with humanity in general and avoid becoming one more invisible identity category within another minority identity movement.

People who are born with physical differences currently classified as having intersex variations are part of the WHOLE human family. OII does not wish to underline our differences from other groups, whether they be heterosexual, homosexual, trans or whatever identity because we belong to all these groups. What we wish is to build bridges between people and groups from all over the world in the hope of ending human rights violations against people with intersex variations and others who also suffer as a result of these sexist norms which affect humanity as a whole.

PRESS RELEASE: Congratulations to Christiane Völling

2008-02-06T16:51:00.000-08:00

PRESS RELEASE - Feb. 6, 2008

Organisation Intersex International

http://www.intersexualite.org/

Congratulations to Christiane Völling

The Organisation Intersex International congratulates Christiane Völling the German intersex woman who sued a surgeon for damages. Today the Cologne Regional Court ruled that her ovaries and uterus were removed over 30 years ago without her informed consent.

This verdict further justifies OII's position that present-day medical treatment of intersex infants and children needs to be reexamined and changes are needed so that not only the physical integrity of the child is not violated but also in such a manner as to respect the child's inalienable right to be accepted as the sex they feel most appropriate.

Current medical treatment recommends early surgical and hormonal intervention, which is often irreversible, in order to assign a sex without consultation with the individual concerned.

Society, the law and medicine need to respect the human rights of all intersex children and in order to do this changes must be made which reflect the biological facts that all people are not born male or female and that some people will not accept their early sex assignment and that others will not accept either a male or female assignment which they also feel is a violation of their human rights.

Christiane Völling's case did highlight a problem regarding legal sex definitions in which the judgment in her favor was based on her being defined as "essentially female" using genetic and anatomical markers. It appears that had she been treated the same way by the surgeon but had Swyers Syndrome for example (46 XY) and had her uterus been removed in the same manner then the Judge in the case may not have ruled in her favor. If the arbitrary use of biological markers remains, these medical violations of intersex people will sadly continue without challenge. It is our view that this should not be a debate about legal or medical markers of sex and fitting people into those categories, but about the integrity of the whole individual, and the rights of that individual to have their integrity both physically and mentally protected from societal, legal and medical violation.

We appreciate Christiane's courage and willingness to defend herself with such dignity and we wish her a long and happy life. We hope that this case will help heal the damage done to many intersex people worldwide and that society at large will make a place for us and treat us with the human dignity most other members of society enjoy.

Curtis E. Hinkle

Founder, Organisation Intersex International

E-mail: curtis.hinkle@gmail.com

For more information about Christiane Völling's lawsuit:
http://www.intersexualite.org/Christiane.html

New Website

2007-01-28T11:11:00.000-08:00

Visit OII-USA's new website at:

http://www.intersexualite.org/oii-usa-index.html

OII – USA is the United States affiliate of the Organisation Intersex International, a non-profit organisation incorporated in the Province of Quebec, Canada. We have members throughout the United States. OII – USA resists all efforts to make intersex invisible, including genital mutilation, medicalization and normalization without consent and offers another face to intersex lives and experience by highlighting the richness and diversity of intersex identities and culture.

OII is the largest intersex organisation in the world with members representing almost all known intersex variations. It has members in North and South America, Europe, Asia and Australia.

For information on other intersex associations which are part of OII and intersex activists from around the world, visit our international site:

http://www.intersexualite.org

The DSD Chronicles

2006-10-06T15:15:00.000-07:00

Visit OII's website which has pages devoted to the DSD controversy, Alice Dreger and J Michael Bailey

http://www.intersexualite.org/Disorders_of_Sex_Development.html
and
http://www.intersexualite.org/AliceDreger.html

The intersex community has been severely DUPED and manipulated. The reason there was practically NO intersex participation in this DSD scandal that has been ongoing for quite a while now was because they most likely did not want any participation from people who might figure out what was going on and who was involved.

1) J Michael Bailey is a central figure in the Network on Psychosexual Differentiation at Penn State which resurrected the Disorder terminology in a psychosexual context. He spoke on different occasions at their meetings specifically on intersex and helped formulate their mission which includes the following:

“Develop or refine animal paradigms that model and help to explain the genetic, neuroendocrine, and social processes underlying both normal sex-typed behaviors and pathological behaviors observed in individuals with intersex conditions or gender-atypical behavior.”

http://nichdnet.psych.psu.edu/aims.html
http://nichdnet.psych.psu.edu/members.html

2) Dreger and Chase then went about popularizing this terminology of disorders to the medical community outside the "psychology" and "psychiatric" community. We were told that medical doctors preferred the term "disorder". Well, they "prefer" it because that is what Dreger and Chase actually sold to them by publishing articles specifically on the reasons medical doctors should change to the term "disorder" as the preferred terminology long before most of us got wind of what they were doing.

3) Then Network members at Penn State and Northwestern "researchers" where Dreger and Bailey are located get all this funding that conflates the two issues - disorders of sex and disorders of psychosexual development.

4) Bailey is in BOTH groups and a CLOSE associate of Dreger and someone she has been defending.

DSD: The Scandal Exposed

1: The Consortium

DSD Consortium: Homophobia and transphobia exposed

2: Cheryl Chase and ISNA

Cheryl Chase and Disorders of Sex Development (DSD)

http://oii-usa.blogspot.com/2006/10/cheryl-chase-and-disorders-of-sex.html

3: Alice Dreger

Alice Dreger: Disorders of Sex Development

http://oii-usa.blogspot.com/2006/09/alice-dreger-disorders-of-sex.html

DREGER IN DENIAL

Response from Michelle O'Brien to Dreger's e-mail sent to a few intersex activists

The Rhetorical castration of the Intersex community

4: Intersex activists start to revolt

IAIA’s home page

DSD - Is there really a consensus?

Three intersex activists defend children against pejorative terminology

5: About the Guidelines and the Handbook for Parents

Handbook for Parents is transphobic and homophobic

6: DSD: Commentary

Medical Fraud and Quckery

New Guidelines for Sex Development Disorders - Parody

7: DSD - Silencing Intersex Voices – International support letters:

Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - United Kingdom

Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - Canada

Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - France/Belgium and Luxemburg

Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - Switzerland

Resist – Refuse to be a victim

2006-10-06T08:20:00.000-07:00

Despite the efforts of some who would wish to make us think we are powerless, it is important that we refuse these messages. We are not powerless. We have made it this far and there are no obstacles that can obstruct the truth.

We have the right to speak.

We have the right to claim our rightful place in society.

We have the right to be heard.

We have every right to stand proud. Ours is a noble cause.

We have proved that we can resist and reject society’s shameful and stigmatizing exclusion of us. We have proved the content of our character.

We are winners. That is the message that we in OII-USA would like to send to our allies and supporters from all over the world who are joining us in our struggle against those who would pathologize us and not listen to us.

We have received support from Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Luxemburg, Switzerland, Israel, Argentina, Brazil, Spain, Sweden, India, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and from many different groups and organizations around the world. We wish to thank them from the depths of our heart and let them know that with their help:

We are winners and we will win.

The Rhetorical castration of the Intersex community

2006-10-05T15:45:00.000-07:00

An analysis of Alice Dreger’s Rhetoric of Power as applied to the DSD controversy

by Curtis E. Hinkle

First of all, it is very hurtful and in fact traumatizing to many of us in the intersex community to have an intersex activist who is not intersexed to tell us repeatedly that we are powerless. This is what Alice Dreger has now been telling us for several days. For many of us, this is part of the very damaging and stigmatizing messages we have received since early childhood. Our only hope for any sense of control over who we were and what was to be done with our bodies and our very sense of self was to retreat, to withdraw, hoping that by becoming invisible we could avoid further harm. Our families helped us in most cases by actually reinforcing the conspiracy of lies about who we were and only made the shame and powerlessness we felt as children seem justified. What we were was so shameful that we could not speak about it. We could not dare say what we were. We were just beginning to move beyond this paralyzing shame.

Once again, we are in a similar situation. We are being told that intersex is NOT something that any child should have as a label and those in power, those that Dreger convinced by her own articles and activism to stop calling us intersex, are going to deny us this one small crumb of human decency – a name that we were beginning to feel proud of as we slowly worked through our shame and trauma. And it has been very alarming and chilling to witness the open castration of the intersex community in Dreger’s rhetoric of power in which she reminds us of our proper place – powerless victims of those who know how to speak about us, who know how to manage us and who will once again “assist” us as we go back into our shells, brutally scarred once again from the current struggle to have some place in society and some voice, and hide, hoping we can heal from this last major attempt to castrate all remnants of intersex voices.

This is not acceptable. Alice Dreger’s rhetoric is NOT empowering. I suggest that it is meant to make us feel powerless, to convince us that we are. This is not acceptable. It is in fact cruel to treat a marginalized and very damaged group of people in this way when she knows we are bleeding from this last operation performed by her and ISNA that stabbed into the very heart of our slowly emerging identity and sense of being a small part of humanity. It is as if we have once again been excised from public view, that our very fragile sense of community was crushed into total submission – the eternal eunuchs.

Another technique used by Dreger is to repeat and define the categories of people who do have power in the debate and by doing so, we are excluded from the debate about OUR lives, our identites, our BODIES. We have been told over and over that those with real power are:

PARENTS AND DOCTORS
NOT THE INTERSEX COMMUNITY

She has made it clear that she is a mother many times. She knows that many of us can never have children. We do not begrudge her the happiness that she has in being a parent but in addressing us and telling us that we need to speak to those in power which she defines as doctors and parents, it is very cruel to remind us that she is a mother, something that many of us would have so much wanted to be. It is a dual edged-sword this parental power rhetoric. It disempowers us by placing us in a category that most of us could never be in and then she reminds us that she is in that category.

Reminding us that doctors have power and most of us know that her husband is a doctor is also a two-edged sword. Equating power with doctors is something that is traumatically painful to many of us who remember the power they did exert over us and the very pain this abuse of power inflicted on our bodies and our souls.

We have been castrated publicly. This is cruel. We should reclaim our power and take the scalpels of privilege and stand proud and say NO.

We do have power and we will speak openly and proudly.

Quotes from recent messages from Alice Dreger to the Intersex Community:

"As a historian, I have to wonder whether a lot of the intense discussions among intersex adults is happening because it is something they can do. ... When you’re sitting on a closed-loop listserv, arguing with insiders who have not so much power, think about whether your time is better spent engaging those with power. Think about writing to doctors and telling them what happened to you and what you wish had happened to you. Think about providing positive, constructive support and education through the diagnosis-specific groups and through your community’s religious institutions, schools, and other non-profit organizations."

Talking about What Matters - Alice Dreger

"As I talked about in my recent blog on the terminology ..., I would really like to see people try to direct their writing, speaking, and thinking energies towards engagement with those with real power. That is not Curtis Hinkle, or for that matter most other intersex activists, including me. That is the doctors and the parents who need our help understanding how to make things better and better. That's why I spend the vast majority of my energy doing that kind of engagement and I encourage you to do the same, even as people whack at you (or your friends and allies) and try to distract you from your real work that I know you do so incredibly well--peer-support work, human rights work, educational work, medical reform work.:

E-mail sent to some intersex activists by Alice Dreger, October 1, 2006

Cheryl Chase and Disorders of Sex Development (DSD)

2006-10-02T15:18:00.000-07:00

A report from OII - USA, Edited by Curtis E. Hinkle
October 2, 2006

http://oii-usa.blogspot.com/2006/09/cheryl-chase-disorders-sex-development.html

Background:

For many decades medical geneticists and endocrinology researchers have quietly conducted research and published papers on what they’ve long called “disorders of sexual differentiation” (now more commonly known as intersex conditions).

That medical terminology thus goes back to an earlier time – a time in the 1950’s and 60’s when anything but a strictly bipolar male/female physicality, gender or partnering was considered disordered – a time when even homosexuality was considered a mental pathology.

The Rise of ISNA:

In 1993, intersex activist Cheryl Chase founded the “Intersex Society of North America” (ISNA), and began lobbying the surgical and pediatric communities to bring a halt to the practice of “normalizing” genital surgeries on intersex infants, which, of the many concerns we intersex people have, was Chase’s preeminent concern.

http://www.isna.org

Over time Chase’s personal crusade to stop such surgeries, of which she herself had been a victim, gained the attention of large numbers of people in medicine, psychiatry, and psychology. She also proved to be a skilled fund-raiser and ISNA gained substantial support from major donors and philanthropic organizations.

By 2003, Chase’s impassioned writings, lectures and advocacy efforts had helped her build deep ties all across the medical community.

Instead of functioning as a grass-roots intersex community organization and mostly interacting with intersex people, Chase instead sought attention, respect and recognition by the medical community – in order to most effectively lobby for a cessation of infant genital surgeries. A recent story in the New York Times confirms the extent of Chase’s connections in the medical community, as follows:

“Chase has talked to thousands of doctors and others in the medical profession, making the case that being born intersex should not be treated as shameful and require early surgery.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/magazine/24intersexkids.html

The Reification of DSD:

Chase’s medical connections included ties to a nascent coalition of university-based genetics and sexology researchers called "The Network on Psychosexual Differentiation" – a network of people interested in studying “sexual disorders”. Helping make those connections was Alice Dreger, a member of the ISNA Board who had connections in that research clique, especially at Northwestern University and at Penn State University.

The “Network on Psychosexual Differentiation” was supported by the NICHD to develop a research program all across the field of “sexual disorders”, which NIH could then use as a roadmap for making later larger research grants to the various Network members.

In a meeting in October, 2003, the “Network” adopted the old medical terminology of “disorders of sexual differentiation” as a key descriptor in their “mission statement”. That terminology then became deeply embedded in all their proposals, program descriptions and published papers:

http://nichdnet.psych.psu.edu/
http://nichdnet.psych.psu.edu/aims.html
http://www.intersexualite.org/English_OII/IAIA/IAIA_index.html

In parallel with the Network’s activities, Dreger and Chase at ISNA began work on a set of handbooks regarding the care and treatment of young intersex people – and at some point formed the “DSD Consortium” to promote these handbooks and to promote the DSD research. In doing so, they made a coordinated adoption of the DSD terminology in parallel with the NICHD Network’s adopting that same terminology.

http://www.dsdguidelines.org/about/cons
http://www.dsdguidelines.org/htdocs/clinical/index.html
http://www.dsdguidelines.org/htdocs/parents/index.html

Dreger then became the principal author (with Chase as a co-author) of a journal article that began the Consortium’s process of popularizing the DSD terminology as a replacement for intersex, both within and outside the medical community:

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

http://www.medhelp.org/ais/PDFs/Dreger-Nomenclature-2005.pdf

Dreger’s disorders paper promoted the use of the old-time phrase “disorders of sexual differentiation" (later changed to “development”) – by 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.

A Backlash begins:

The publication of that paper by Dreger and the use of “DSD” by the DSD Consortium and the NICHD Network, led to the beginnings of a backlash in the intersex community against the adoption of such retrograde, old-time terminology.

As lead author of the disorders paper, Dreger reacted by going on the defensive, to prop up the terminology, in a March 2006 ISNA blog entry:

We realize, of course, that any terminology including the word “disorder” can be construed as pejorative. We’d also like to emphasize that we use the abbreviated form of DSD whenever possible. Explaining why this is important, Alice Dreger writes, “we find that, when accompanied by an explanation of what we mean, DSD isn’t terribly stigmatizing. And an important point: the acronym DSD is very useful—and thus, the acronym should be favored over the spelled-out term— because as an abbreviation we don’t focus on ‘disorder’.” We explain what we mean, and then use the term “DSDs.” Thus, we recognize that this is not a perfect term, but we hope ISNA’s supporters and allies will understand that it’s helping us enact real change in medical care. – ISNA Website

http://www.isna.org/node/1028

The Staging of a “Consensus Conference”:

Around the same time frame as publication of Dreger’s DSD paper, a “consensus conference” was staged in Chicago (in October 2005) by selected members of the medical community - to officially determine a new term for intersex people.

The resulting “consensus statement” involved the participation of many supporters of DSD terminology, for by now ISNA and the NICHD Network and the DSD Consortium had promoted that terminology very successfully in medical circles.

There was no grass-roots representation of the intersex community at the “consensus” conference, and our community was clueless that this was even going on back then. However, the word sure got out in May 2006, when the “consensus statement” was openly published:

“Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders”, by I A Hughes, et al; Archives of Disease in Childhood ac98319 Module 2, May 4, 2006:

http://www.medhelp.org/ais/PDFs/Chicago-Consensus-Statement-06.pdf

Alarm Bells Ring:

Alarm bells began to ring as word of this so-called “consensus” spread through the intersex community. Intersex people around the world alerted allies in the research community to ask “How could this have happened – especially without widespread intersex participation?"

Rapidly growing concerns among allies in the research community then led prominent researchers such as Prof. Milton Diamond to make eloquent pleas for the use of less pathologizing language:

“Variations of Sex Development Instead of Disorders of Sex Development”,
Milton Diamond, ADC-Online, 27 July 2006.

http://adc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/91/7/554#2460

Further escalation of the backlash might have been avoided, if discussions had been opened at this point, between the DSD Consortium and the many intersex advocacy organizations, about Prof. Diamond’s key idea: Why not simply replace “disorders” with “variations”?

Chase Goes on the Defensive:

However, by now it was too late. DSD was too widely embedded in the ISNA publications and DSD Consortium and NICHD Network research programs, proposals and publications – and in planned public events and media articles that were by now on their way.

By now Chase was also taking the pushback quite personally and becoming angry about the actions of the “intersex activists”, as Dreger called anyone who disagreed with the use of DSD.

Chase began defending DSD even more aggressively – including appearing at the AISSG-USA Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2006, and handing out a brochure explaining her reasons for supporting the terminology. In the process, Chase revealed some very dark things about ISNA ideology – things our community has long been aware of, but that now need to be looked at more closely.

As documented in her brochure, the bottom line of Chase’s defense of the old-time DSD terminology is that:

“Intersex” has been embraced by groups with a variety of social agendas not focused on improving medical care. Whether or not you support these agendas, it’s confusing to label a patient’s medical condition with a label that implies an agenda of radical social change. Some of these include:

• people who want to prove that homosexuality is a normal variation

• people who want to prove that transsexuality is a normal variation

- From “Why change the medical nomenclature?” By Cheryl Chase

Here Chase makes an appeal to return to the old-time, pathologizing medical terminology – saying that the newer term “intersex” might be confused with agendas of “radical social change”, such the normalization of homosexuality and the normalization of transsexualism.

Does this sound like homophobia and transphobia to you? It sure does to us.

A Fait Accompli?

But Chase did not stop there: The consensus statement was given more publicity in the pediatric medical community in August 2006 – in a publication which further gave the impression that this was an “intersex consensus”, as if it HAD involved widespread participation by the intersex community:

“Summary of Consensus Statement on Intersex Disorders and Their Management”, Christopher P. Houk, et al; PEDIATRICS Vol. 118 No. 2 August 2006, pp. 753-757
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/extract/118/2/753

“DSDs and the Chicago Consensus Meeting/Statement”, AISSG-UK
http://www.medhelp.org/ais/15_ANNOUNCE.HTM#16%20Aug%202006

The terminology was also given national media exposure in a glowing article about Cheryl Chase in the New York Times on September 24, 2006 – and article that made extensive use of “DSD”:

"What if It’s (Sort of) a Boy and (Sort of) a Girl?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/magazine/24intersexkids.html

Those publications gave the appearance of a “fait accompli” in terminology, and the intersex community now seemed powerless to stop it. However, the staging of DSD promotion events wasn’t over; there was even more to come.

The Staging of the DSD Symposium at the GLMA Conference:

Without intersex community knowledge or involvement, Chase had also arranged for an entire “DSD Symposium” to be staged as part of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) Conference, on October 14, 2006.

The intersex community only heard about this Symposium “about us” when one of us noticed the GLMA conference schedule (showing how out of contact ISNA has become with our community – and in this case perhaps intentionally so):

http://www.glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageID=559
http://www.glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageID=560
http://www.isna.org/node/1089
http://www.isna.org/dsdsymposium2006/program

When many of us asked GLMA if they were aware of the controversy surrounding the DSD terminology, and of how pathologizing it was towards intersex people – the folks at GLMA appeared dumfounded, and said “we’ll look into it”.

Thus we discovered that well-intentioned but clueless gay and lesbian organizers of the GLMA Conference have given center-stage at the conference to the medical pathologizers of intersex people – where they can make pronouncements about how to “manage disorders of sex development” – i.e., how to “manage” the lives of intersex people.

Things to Do:

We need to let GLMA know that we do not appreciate being blindsided this way, as if we didn’t even exist, and then left with no voice in these important discussions about our fates. You can direct your comments to:

Joel Ginsberg, JD, Executive Director

Gay and Lesbian Medical Association

459 Fulton Street, Suite 107

San Francisco, CA 94102

jginsberg@glma.org

www.glma.org

PS: You might also ask Mr. Ginsberg whether GLMA supports the ISNA pronouncement that “people who want to prove that homosexuality is a normal variation” are engaged in “an agenda of radical social change”. That sure sounds like homophobia to us. Maybe it will sound that way to GLMA too.

Links to Related Pages:

OII Articles on the DSD controversy:

Monday, October 2, 2006

Response from Michelle O'Brien to Dreger's e-mail sent to a few intersex activists

http://oii-usa.blogspot.com/2006/10/alice-dreger-dsd-update-and-response.html

Saturday, August 26, 2006

Three intersex activists defend children against pejorative terminology
http://oii-usa.blogspot.com/2006/08/three-intersex-activists-defend.html

Monday, September 11, 2006

DSD - Is there really a consensus?
http://oii-usa.blogspot.com/2006/09/dsd-is-there-really-consensus.html

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Handbook for Parents is transphobic and homophobic
http://oii-usa.blogspot.com/2006/09/handbook-for-parents-is-transphobic.html

Friday, September 22, 2006

DSD Consortium: Homophobia and transphobia exposed
http://oii-usa.blogspot.com/2006/09/dsd-consortium-homophobia-and.html

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Alice Dreger: Disorders of Sex Development
http://oii-usa.blogspot.com/2006/09/alice-dreger-disorders-of-sex.html

Thursday, September 28, 2006

DREGER IN DENIAL
http://oii-usa.blogspot.com/2006/09/dreger-in-denial.html

DSD - Silencing Intersex Voices – international support letters:

Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - United Kingdom
http://oii-usa.blogspot.com/2006/09/alice-dreger-dsd-silencing_115962212174035805.html

Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - Canada
http://oii-usa.blogspot.com/2006/09/alice-dreger-dsd-silencing_115962168229054001.html

Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - France/Belgium and Luxemburg
http://oii-usa.blogspot.com/2006/09/alice-dreger-dsd-silencing-intersex_30.html

Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - Switzerland
http://oii-usa.blogspot.com/2006/09/alice-dreger-dsd-silencing-intersex.html

Alice Dreger: DSD - Update and response from the OII-UK

2006-10-02T11:56:00.000-07:00

The following is an e-mail that Alice Dreger mailed to some intersex activists. What follows is a response from Michelle O’Brien, OII-United Kingdom

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Alice Dreger, Ph.D."
To: Recipients’ Names removed
Subject: DSD terminology
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 09:58:56 -0400

Folks,

I hope your intersex rights work is going well as I write. As always, I personally appreciate what you're doing to help build a better world for intersex children and adults.

I see that Curtis Hinkle is up to his usual behavior, this time attacking me personally about the DSD terminology. I want you to know one thing, and then to make a suggestion.

The thing I want you to know is that I pissed off trans activist Andrea James (see http://www.alicedreger.com/in_fear), and as a result she decided she would try to attack me via attacking the DSD terminology. She told me this explicitly in an email on June 1, 2006. I quote: "I could care less about your kid and your sense of breeder entitlement. I am, however, going to do what I can to discredit your lame-ass DSD model. At least you got that part right."

I also quote here from her email of May 27, 2006: "DSD is going to be your merm and ferm. You have made a spectacular misstep with this disease model, though still not as inept as Bailey’s. Can’t wait till you and DSD are discredited by intersex activists (e.g., the world outside ISNA) and top-tier ethicists (e.g., not you) looking at the bigger picture. Your one-issue advocacy is selling out a larger movement for the sake of expediency. Bad move, mommy."

So besides sending me threats about my son, James has opted to team up with Curtis to achieve her aims. Hence her links to Curtis's work on her general-attack site.

I want you to know this because I think a lot of intersex people are in danger of having their progressive energies sucked up by an offshoot of James's attempts to irritate and discredit me, which are offshoots of her attempts to ruin other people.

That said, I do think it is definitely worth having productive discussions about the DSD terminology and when it is worth using, and I'm glad people are taking about it.

So my suggestion is this: When you're engaged in discussions about this, PLEASE do not waste time discussing what I think or what I have said or anything else about me. Focus on what matters -- intersex people and their well-being. It doesn't matter what I think or say, except insofar as perhaps some people wish to know how I see the debate. What matters is how well people with intersex are.

So please try to keep the discussion focused on what really matters, and that way James won't be harming the intersex community the way she has so tragically harmed the transgender community. (You won't know about a lot of that harm, but I do, because since I spoke up, many trans people have written to me to tell me what she's done to them. They are much too afraid--for obvious reasons--to speak publicly about what she's done to them.)

As I talked about in my recent blog on the terminology (http://www.alicedreger.com/dsd), I would really like to see people try to direct their writing, speaking, and thinking energies towards engagement with those with real power. That is not Curtis Hinkle, or for that matter most other intersex activists, including me. That is the doctors and the parents who need our help understanding how to make things better and better. That's why I spend the vast majority of my energy doing that kind of engagement and I encourage you to do the same, even as people whack at you (or your friends and allies) and try to distract you from your real work that I know you do so incredibly well--peer-support work, human rights work, educational work, medical reform work.

Please feel free to share this email with whomever you wish. I also welcome those of you who have my DSD resignation letter to go ahead and leak the rest of it; there's nothing in there or any of the rest of my work that I'm not proud of. Indeed, I'll attach the letter here so you all have the whole of it.

It has been my great privilege and honor to be so well advised and supported and led by you and your colleagues.

Best wishes,
Alice

Alice Dreger, Ph.D.
Medical Humanities and Bioethics Program
Feinberg School of Medicine
Northwestern University

-------------------------------------------

Response from Michelle O’Brien, OII-UK

Recently, I have been hearing about how Dr. Dreger is spreading rumours amongst people who are sympathetic to OII and unhappy about the new terminology she has been involved in consolidating, that this all has something to do with a Ms. James. Let it be made quiet clear that I have nothing to do with Ms. James, and have never had any conversations with her; I am not aware that she has anything to do with OII.

Here in the UK, as far as I am aware, beyond her website, Ms. James has little relevance to the trans community – let alone intersex people. I do not approve of some of methods in relation to Prof. Bailey (but I think I understand why) detailed in Dr. Dreger’s Blog.

The taking-issue about the terminology of disorder is something that has emerged from discussions within OII & other intersex groups, and has not been inserted by anyone outside seeking to cause disruption. If the allegations in her latest e-mail to certain intersex activists about recent private correspondence between Dr. Dreger & Ms. James are genuine, then it would appear that Ms. James is quite perceptive in being able to see where that new terminology would lead. Anyone can link to OII’s website; a link from another website in no way means that there is collaboration between two sites – simply that there may be points of intersection in the eyes of the linking site.

Dr. Dreger should be addressing facts, not rumour-mongering. To work behind the scenes seeking to undermine people’s credibility displays a distinct lack of integrity, and only serves to undermine her credibility further. It adds weight to the concerns I and others have expressed about the way the exclusive Prof. Bailey list at NWU she is a member of works. Instead of discussing these matters openly, and consulting with those affected, embracing intellectual discourse, she and others are choosing to operate more like a politburo which disseminates party dogma and carries out character assassination.

Here in the UK, some very unpleasant situations have arisen because of the way Animal Rights extremists have responded to what they regard as the extreme mistreatment of animals. Personally, I have no strong views on this matter, but I can understand why some people would want to protest practice in this area; I have no idea how people can go to the extremes that they do in their actions, but they do – and it is intolerable. However, what we have seen time and again in this country is that every time there is some atrocity carried out by Animal Rights extremists, somebody who is operating within the legal framework is pulled in to the media and asked how they can defend this sort of behaviour. They usually make it clear that they do not support extreme activity, and explain what their role is and what they are seeking to change. Yet, the insinuation is that these peaceful activists are in some way connected with those at the extremes. Guilt is by association, not of persons, but of issues.

People will believe a big lie easier than a little one; if you keep repeating it people will come to believe it. It is a propaganda technique first articulated by Hitler, then by Gobbels about Churchill, then by OSS about Hitler, and by Kevin Kostner in his film ‘JFK’.

I see this recent insinuation by Dr. Dreger as a similar smear tactic. Tell people Curtis & OII are irrelevant enough times, rather than asking why you need to be saying this if they are, rather than asking why a group of intersex people should not be listened to in a debate about these issues (rather than experts like her and her medical superiors), they might come to believe we are irrelevant. Tell people Curtis & OII are puppets of Ms. James enough, and they might start believing it. Insinuate that OII are extremists and political activists who support the sorts of extreme behaviour that Ms. James is supposed to have done (things that any reasonable person would condemn), and they might believe it. Tell people that OII believe in a third gender, no medical treatment for any intersex issues, non-assignment of intersex children, or that Lee Harvey Oswald was part of an intergalactic plot by beings from a planet in the Sirius system to take over the world – make the lie big enough and keep repeating it, and people might believe it.

Well, this is simply not true, Dr. Dreger, and I am calling it out into the open. I for one would like to know the truth about this myself. There are many people who disagree with Prof. Bailey, but they do not carry things to extremes. There may have been actions carried out by Ms. James that are inexcusable, for all I know, particularly when it comes to Prof. Bailey; this may have been directed against Dr. Dreger, I don’t know, because all there is on this are Dr. Dreger’s fears on the matter. If this is true, it would be a great shame, because Ms. James’ website is an excellent resource, as I recall (if it is true, I would urge Ms. James to look for more constructive ways of putting her obvious talents to better use). But, regardless of that, the simple truth is, Ms. James is not involved with me, or anyone in OII I know of – any more than OII or I are involved with Ms. Koyama following a set of e-mail exchanges we had a couple of weeks back. I am sure Emi would be first to accept that!

What concerns me with the insinuation is that it is a red-herring. Instead of discussing the issues, what we will end up with is ‘why do you support Ms. James doing XYZ?’: well, I don’t, and it has nothing to do with OII. It is a tactic to avoid authentic discussion on the part of Dr. Dreger. I may agree that the blanket reduction of all male to female transsexuality to simple homosexuality, sexual practice and paraphilia is wrong, but that is not the same as supporting tactics that I consider to be inappropriate in any discussion. In the same way as my not approving of some of the things sanctioned by the fundamentalist-led US government does not make me an Islamic extremist.

Let us get this clear now. This is my position, and as far as I am aware, it is true for OII:

• I do not support any threats or character assassination against somebody’s person or family – even though there are people within OII who have been on the receiving end of such things.

• I do not agree with Prof. Bailey on his characterisation of all transsexual people on the basis of a small unrepresentative sample.

• I commend the good work done in the guidelines and handbook – I do not agree that the application of disorder to intersex people is to anyone’s benefit.

• I am glad to see some protocols and guidelines have been recommended; however, I am concerned about what is not said, and that there is no practical means of ensuring that these are followed.

• I am concerned about the deliberate exclusion of people who do not conform to outcome expectations for the categories that have been constructed, or who have no clear diagnostic category.

• I am concerned about the language of sexual disorder throughout being peppered by references to psychosexual and gender outcomes, whilst being told that these issues have nothing to do with sexuality or gender identity.

• I am concerned about the healthcare of adults, and that this issue has not been addressed, and I fear it will now fall by the wayside because of the new terminology and the resistance this has generated – and people within the consortium moving on.

• I am keen to see OII focus on the needs of adults, represent adults, create an inclusive vision for intersex that does doesn’t seek to alienate other groups in the lesbian, gay and trans communities. The healthcare of adults is an area that has been somewhat neglected in the focus on early intervention.

• I consider that the flaws of perception that led to the use of ‘sex disorder’ are the same flaws that regard gender variance as disorder. Those flaws are connected to a historically rigidly heteronormative medical paradigm.

• I would like to see Dr. Dreger and others involved in the debate focus on the issues, rather than seeking to undermine credibility and avoid genuine debate.

• I would like to see the NWU list run by Prof. Bailey become less excluding, and more open to academics & researchers who do not necessarily have the same perception as Dr. Dreger and Prof. Bailey. As far as I am aware, few dissenting voices are allowed on that list, which gives a false sense of consensus.

It is perfectly clear that the DSD consortium made a mistake in not consulting all those involved about the terminology – those who could be excluded by the terminology, those outside the USA who would be affected, and those inside the USA not connected to ISNA. I have published the initial results of my survey which found only 10% agreed with the terminology (this was consistent for all who responded, regardless of whether had experienced childhood surgeries or identified as intersex). The survey is soon to close, but the results have remained consistent. I have yet to see any public details about any consultation and how those that took part were selected, what the figures were, etc. In seeking to encourage a community to adopt a change of terminology in such a deeply significant way, some sort of substantive feedback should have been sought and documented – why has it not yet been publicised?

Mistakes can be rectified, discussion engaged in, but not if people continue to be shut out from debate, subjected to secret whispers behind the scenes. Instead of perpetuating the silence, accusing people of this or that irrelevant thing – whether that is that the terminology is irrelevant, or Ms. James is behind it all, or the George Bush fundamentalist administration is funding this as part of some political agenda, or whatever, let us engage in the debate openly. Failure to do so will damage everybody, possibly even causing the loss of all the good work that has been done so far.

OII - USA: Intersex and proud of it!

2006-09-30T13:50:00.000-07:00

Meet David Cameron XXY: OII-USA Spokesperson for Human Rights

List of contacts by state

Mission Statement on Human Rights

DSD: Disorders of Sex Development (DSD's): Our views

Parody

DSD: Disorders of Sex Development (DSD's): Our view

2006-09-30T11:15:00.000-07:00

OII Articles on the DSD controversy:

Saturday, August 26, 2006

Three intersex activists defend children against pejorative terminology

Monday, September 11, 2006

DSD - Is there really a consensus?

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Handbook for Parents is transphobic and homophobic

Friday, September 22, 2006

DSD Consortium: Homophobia and transphobia exposed

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Alice Dreger: Disorders of Sex Development

Thursday, September 28, 2006

DREGER IN DENIAL

DSD - Silencing Intersex Voices – International support letters:

Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - United Kingdom

Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - Canada

Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - France

Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - Switzerland

For more articles on OII's website

Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - United Kingdom

2006-09-30T06:09:00.000-07:00

Messages of solidarity from OII-UK
Response to blog entry entitled: DREGER IN DENIAL
and letter she wrote recently to intersex activists

The Genuine Question
By Sophia Siedlberg

Spokeswoman for OII in the United Kingdom

Again at the time of my writing this, another furious row has broken out between different people and again it centers around the terminology of “DSD” and I am at a loss as to what to say. I am not particularly interested in why one Alice Dreger resigned. What I am interested in is one statement from a half open letter published by Alice Dreger that does raise a few points I feel really need to be addressed. I suspect strongly if this particular point was addressed then much of this acrimony would end rather quickly.

Alice Dreger stated:

“I would really like to see people direct their writing, speaking and thinking energies towards engagement with those with real power, Not Curtis Hinkle or for that matter most other intersex activists including me, That is Doctors and the parents who need our help understanding how to make things better and better.”

I sort of agree with this statement (except for the snipe at Curtis Hinkle). But in that statement is something I find quite unsettling. “People with power” seems to equate with parents and doctors. Which suggests in some way that activists (However angry or however calm) are considered as lower down some social pecking order, as compared to someone with medical qualifications (Doctor) or who has the ability to reproduce (Parent).

And no, I am not going to be commenting on claims that Alice Dreger is some “interloper” having both the qualifications mentioned. She worked where she worked and did what she did. And there have been questions about how someone in her position can speak for people who they are not. That is how these debates go, that's life.

Well, while everyone has been running around like headless chickens slinging mud at each other, I have had to confront the issue of a child who is in almost identical circumstances to myself 40 years ago. And when I was a child there was this mantra in the UK healthcare system (NHS) which went something like this:

“Treat the parents; control the child”.

From what I am reading, it would seem that statement still stands. I do not really have issues with parents; I had for years gone around with a chip on my shoulder about parents. That is a long story. But I have learned since getting rid of the chip on my shoulder that parents often get mixed messages from the medical profession. They are then left with choices (By the medical profession) that are difficult to say the least. And this is where the truth of that statement lies. “Treat the parents; control the child”. When I was a child, I often heard how my parents were so unfortunate to have such a “Problem” for a child and that they really needed compassionate help (Which basically made my parents worse) and I found myself under the surgeon’s knife so many times I may as well have lived in Hospital. Each and every single cut was designed to alleviate “My Parents’ suffering”. The reality was the doctors of the day were feeding them with some pretty unpleasant, scary stories if they (Not the doctors themselves you will notice) made any mistakes in this process of the child being controlled.

I have to ask myself what psychology was at work there and what did it mean. To be perfectly honest I felt like a living pestilence that had to be controlled by pest control, and I was not a particularly ill behaved child. It was my anatomy that was the cause of such upset.

This is what the chilling term “Sociomedical emergency” refers to. If I have any issues with the content (Not the terminology that’s another matter) of the DSD guidelines it is this common perception that “Parents and doctors have a bigger steak in these issues”. I find this a bit difficult to reconcile with the stark fact that my experience has been that it is my body, my life and my very existence that has been effected by all this and it is me who ended up living with the consequences no one else. The doctor carried on with their careers. My parents just rejected and then forgot me. I was left as a surgically damaged human being facing life that was just an endless nightmare.

While the consortium have obviously gone to great lengths to avoid this ever happening again, I suspect that without taking note of that one core point about “Treat the parents; control the child”, the consortium guidelines run the risk of being rendered utterly meaningless. As for the terminology, again there was this comment I read “Parents and doctors prefer disorders of sexual development - patients do not like this terminology”. I have heard this used to justify the terminology. This illustrates to me that the thinking is still “Treat the parents; control the child”.

I think the current very angry exchanges would not be happening if the protagonists didn’t try to drive wedges between parents and children resulting in children growing up feeling as I do. Angry.

How about changing the underlying assumptions, the underlying medical assumptions that parents are merely breeding stock that need assistance to produce perfect babies? The underlying parental assumptions that children with an intersex condition/DSD have to be made to fit at all costs because the doctors say so and the doctors are always right. And the underlying assumptions I had to get away from, that parents want too much perfection and doctors are always willing to oblige at a financial price to them and at a serious cost to the likes of myself.

I think if everyone got rid of their prejudices then the real prejudices (Of society towards the child) can be confronted. Society is cruel and superficial and society is truly that which has to really confront these issues. I do not want to be teaching parents and doctors, nor do I want to be trying to influence other activists. I do not really want to see these people squabbling. I want those with the “real power” to reconsider what future they are presenting to a child with a condition like mine. Confront that and the doctors, parents and activists will perhaps find fewer reasons to be disagreeing.

Well I have said my piece, in the (perhaps vain) hope that all this politicking and screaming will stop. I am thinking right now of a child who has the same condition as me and who is pretty much facing the sort of things I did. It is up to you people now, yes all of you, as to whether or not that child grows up with a better chance in life than I had. I want that child to have a good life and never want to see her suffer what I did. Well it is up to you now, all of you. All you organizations, support groups doctors, parents, activists

Will that child have a fair chance in life?

Sophie Siedlberg

-----------------------------------------------

Just a line here from someone in OII-UK to show support for all you are doing in North America.

Initially I found the blog article you referred to seemed patronising. However, on reflection, I feel that it is actually quite arrogant. As you say, it seems that we (intersex people – OII?) have managed to exercise some power in all of this, and rocked the boat of the DSD activists. The irony in relation to the Dreger blog is that I can almost imagine the conversations amongst the medics ten years ago in relation to ISNA, and other groups, using very similar language about them.

What I find deeply disturbing about Dreger’s comments is that it may well betray something of her own attitudes about intersex people. She seems to view (some) intersex people from a disabling perspective, just as transsexuals appear to be framed derogatively in similar discourse. Her language verges on demeaning us: in what she writes, she is actually de-meaning us. That is, she is stripping away our meanings, and substituting her meanings for ours; replacing ours with her ‘superior’ historical perspective. I have seen this technique applied by feminist philosophers and intersex spokespeople to de-mean transsexuals – denying their own memories, histories and narratives in favour of their own ideological perspectives. This is an authoritarian technique which seeks to suppress discussion by asserting that there is one ‘objective’ view, accessible only to an enlightened elite; those that are opposed ideologically and marginalised in practice are posited as incapable of being ‘objective’. This is deeply ironic coming from an intellectual tradition that has placed value on the notions of ‘subjectivity’, reflexivity, and historical narrativity.

What Dreger goes on to say re-emphasises her own perspective that we are simply insignificant in her eyes. Clearly we care – so when she asks ‘who cares?’, implying nobody cares, she is saying we are nothing. No doubt from the perspective of the ivory towers of academe, our views are of no value. Our irrelevance, to her or to those who have taken it upon themselves to decide things about DSD terminology, is clear by virtue of the fact that we were never consulted. However the error of not consulting will not be erased by dismissing the debate as simply about language. Suppose I said that “Alice Dreger is an academic who built her career on intersex, then set about introducing a set of guidelines shackled to terminology which many intersex people found demeaning”; it would be disingenuous of me to then turn round having reduced her to this caricature and say it was only a matter of language.

It is no surprise to us that our own views have been so summarily disregarded, because we have often been on the receiving end of that sort of thing. However, for someone who reckons to speak out on these issues in the way she does, in support of intersex people, it is an abominable attitude. To also seek to deny such people any voice is outrageous. I say this because she is active in groups which actively exclude academics who have intersex &/or other relevant histories – such as J Michael Bailey’s group on these issues hosted on the NWU listserver.

Bailey is well known for what he has published about autogynephilia, yet the work he is involved in is clearly working from the position that prenatal androgen exposure (or lack of) has an effect on psycho-sexual differentiation. Papers referred to by Sherri Berenbaum suggest that there is an influence pre-natally that overrides atypical genital configurations. People working with transsexuals, such as Richard Green (a Money protégé, co-signate on the Hughes paper on DSD), when speaking at conferences show their own leanings towards pre-natal influences on gender identity formation

In the work of these people, with whom Dreger is engaged either formally or informally through discussions on DSD and the NWU listserver, something which is clearly accepted as having pre-natal biological origins is treated as if it is an adult paraphilia and mental disorder. Those who are investigating the pre-natal stuff, know that this stuff is not malleable in adulthood, and is no more paraphilic than sexual orientation or physical atypicality. It is scurrilous that it is still treated this way, and it is even moreso when people who have clear signs of intersex are dismissed as falling into the category of mental disorder simply by virtue that they have found it virtually impossible to accept their original sex-assignment. Even where genital anomalies have been evident, gender identity variance from assigned sex is not acknowledged as being due to any pre-natal factors in individual cases, because the research shows that there is no statistical correlation – even though the experts agree that there is a pre-natal factor in psycho-sexual differentiation, and there is among some groups a much higher incidence of change from assignment than in the rest of the population.

It is poor science when the medical-scientific establishment working in a field is in total denial about its own findings, and excludes people from their sample who might be seen to falsify their findings. What they are doing is working back from the assumption that a behaviour is pathological – rather than ‘normal sex-type’ – to the biological mechanisms which set this up, and then seek to use psychiatric measures to rectify that which cannot be rectified; the more simple perspective would be to see that these mechanisms are what happens, and de-pathologise the outcomes, rather than play god with people’s lives. This is the process that Dreger has been consorting with – however nice and charming those people may actually be, it is the system that is perpetuated, and by default that she has signed up to.

In some ways I feel sorry for her, to have worked so hard for something, but overlooked a glaring flaw at the foundation of the edifice (the language of disorder in the context of an entrenched phobia of sex, gender and sexuality variance). I have no sympathy for someone so intelligent and articulate falling into such a trap, as she simply should have known better. Let us hope that people learn through this that intersex people are not sheep to be led by the nose where those who know best will lead them.

Keep handing her the shovel Curtis she seems quite good at digging all by herself...

Michelle O’Brien, OII-UK

Related Link:
http://oii-uk.blogspot.com/2006/09/building-bridges.html

Other related links on the DSD controversy:

Saturday, August 26, 2006
Three intersex activists defend children against pejorative terminology
Monday, September 11, 2006
DSD - Is there really a consensus?
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Handbook for Parents is transphobic and homophobic
Friday, September 22, 2006
DSD Consortium: Homophobia and transphobia exposed
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Alice Dreger: Disorders of Sex Development
Thursday, September 28, 2006
DREGER IN DENIAL
DSD - Silencing Intersex Voices – International support letters:
Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - United Kingdom
Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - Canada
Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - France
Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - Switzerland

For more articles on OII's website

Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - Canada

2006-09-30T06:00:00.000-07:00

Message of solidarity from OII-Canada
Response to blog entry entitled: DREGER IN DENIAL

The title of Dreger’s blog entry says it all:

Talking about What Matters.

We in Canada have been repeatedly told that we do not matter by US intersex organisations and that what we have to say does not matter. Thanks for making this clear. However, we in OII-Canada, the actual founders of the Organisation Intersex International, disagree. We think we do matter and that what we have to say has a right to be heard.

We have experienced total blackouts from all US related intersex organisations because we were told that our activities were not important. We actually received an e-mail to that effect last year.

Suppressing the voices of intersex people around the world is not an effective way of empowering the intersex community.

We in Canada do not speak for the US intersex movement. However, we do wish to express our solidarity with OII-USA which is an affiliate of the organisation we founded here in Quebec and we are very proud to have OII-USA as part of OII.

Affectionately,
Joëlle-Circé Laramée
Spokeswoman for OII-Canada
Vice-présidente et contact au Canada pour les médias anglophones et francophones
Contact for Canadian English speaking media
Courriel: joellecirce2000@yahoo.ca
Blog: http://oii-canada.blogspot.com/

Other related links on the DSD controversy:
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Three intersex activists defend children against pejorative terminology
Monday, September 11, 2006
DSD - Is there really a consensus?
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Handbook for Parents is transphobic and homophobic
Friday, September 22, 2006
DSD Consortium: Homophobia and transphobia exposed
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Alice Dreger: Disorders of Sex Development
Thursday, September 28, 2006
DREGER IN DENIAL
DSD - Silencing Intersex Voices – International support letters:
Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - United Kingdom
Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - Canada
Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - France
Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - Switzerland

For more articles on OII's website

Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - France/Belgium/Luxemburg

2006-09-30T05:53:00.000-07:00

Message of solidarity from OII-France,
OII-Belgium & Luxemburg

Response to blog entry entitled: DREGER IN DENIAL

We in France are deeply concerned about the DSD guidelines and the very terminology. First of all, no Francophone intersex voices were allowed input despite the fact that we wished to have some voice.

We find it alarming that we have consistently been silenced by the US intersex movement which at the same time has had big articles published in our French magazines about them and further making it more difficult for us to speak about intersex in our own country.

These guidelines have serious consequences outside the United States and since intersex organisations from the United States find it perfectly acceptable to take centre stage in France, we also find it disturbing that we were never consulted about any of these guidelines or terminology.

We fully support OII-USA and its efforts to expose the fundamental objections that we have in France to this US-based Consortium which is exporting this to other countries without input from those of us trying to have a voice in our own countries.

Mes amitiés,
Vincent Guillot
Spokesperson for OII – Francophone Europe
Blog: http://oii-france.blogspot.com/

Message from Camille: (orginal French follows)

"As an intersexed person who was "treated" in childhood without consent, I wish to extend my total support and solidarity with my intersexed brothers and sisters in the organization OII-USA in the struggle against the new "DSD consortium" which was elaborated without consulting with the intersex community and which uses terms which are stigmatizing, shameful and which serve as a vehicle for preserving normalization therapies which sacrifice the integrity of intersexed children in order to calm the anxieties of the parents and which work to maintain the binary sex system and the sexism of that system.

Camille Lamarre, France
PS:(Huge kisses of solidarity!)

"En tant qu'intersexué-e "traité-e" dans l'enfance sans mon consentement éclairé, je souhaite apporter mon soutien et ma solidarité totale avec mes frères et soeurs intersexes de l'organisation OII-USA dans leur combat contre le nouveau "DSD consortium" qui a été élaboré sans tenir compte de la communauté intersexe et dont le qualificatif de DSD est stigmatisant, infamant et qui vise à maintenir les thérapeutiques de normalisation , sacrifiant les intérêts et l'intégrité des enfants intersexes au profit de la tranquilité des parents et du maintien d'un système sexuel binaire et sexiste."

Camille Lamarre, France
PS:(grosses bises solidaires!)

Message of solidarity from OII-Belgium and Luxemburg

We are not “disorders” !

A North American organization, the "Consortium on the Management of Disorders of Sex Development" intends to impose the terminology "Disorders of sex development" in Europe, just as it is presently doing in the United States. This new terminology is to replace the term "intersex" which is more broadly used and this decision has been made without any consultation or agreement from the individuals or associations that represent them.

Those of us who were born with bodies and/or who have genders which are not typically male or female in Belgium and Luxemburg, demand the right to self-determination concerning our sex and gender assignments at birth and we join the Organisation Intersex International – USA in refusing any pathological labels whatsoever.

Furthermore, those of us in Belgium and Luxemburg who are not typically male or female by current standards, demand the right to self-determination and respect for our choice concerning sex assignments and we demand respect from the medical community and other associated health-care providers and we demand the right to health care that all human beings should have access to.

Edith Nagant
OII Belgium and Luxemburg - OII Europe
(Organisation Internationale des Intersexes)

http://oii-europe.blogspot.com/ http://www.intersexualite.org/Europe/-index.html

Réseau InterGenre-InterSexe

rsoigis@yahoo.fr
http://www.intersexualite.org/F-intergenre.html

For more articles on OII's website

Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - Switzerland

2006-09-30T05:43:00.000-07:00

Message of solidarity from OII-Switzerland

Response to blog entry entitled: DREGER IN DENIAL

Dear team of the OII-USA:

Reading Alice Dreger's last message on her blog is very interesting both for what it contains, and for what it does not contain.

This message does not contain a single word about her own responsibility in the damage caused by the DSD consortium to intersexed children. This message does not contain a single word of regret for parents who are manipulated through the ideology of this consortium. It does not contain a single word of regret for the suffering the children will continue to endure because of the work of this consortium. It does not contain a single word of regret for the pain caused by this consortium, for the human consequences of the battle which is currently happening.

Alice Dreger writes this message as if all the struggle currently happening was only about terminology and as if the core of the content of the documents of the DSD consortium were not problematic. Actually, all this article is written in a way to describe a peaceful discussion about a topic of secondary importance. I seriously doubt that intersexed people will have the same perception.

This text is obviously patronizing, as several people did already notice it. But it is also a manipulation, like a "tour de passe passe". It tries to transform a struggle where the outcome is the sufferings of intersexed children and the recognition of their specific identity into a discussion about terminology. It tries to transform the struggle against homophobic and transphobic protocols into a discussion between activists who prefer to leave parents and children alone. It manipulates parents as if it was appropriate and ethical to lie to them. It manipulates readers as if all this struggle was only about terminology and not about the core of the content of these documents.

It obviously takes a lot of energy for the OII-USA team to counter such unethical actions. But this struggle is very important, for all intersexed children, for their parents, for the recognition of their specific identity all over the world and not only in the USA.

I am extremely impressed by the way you are able to document and publicly communicate the truth about the DSD Consortium. This work is impressive and it is important far beyond the borders of the U.S.A.

I would like to send you my gratitude for the countless hours of difficult work needed to do this.

Marie-Noëlle Baechler
Belmont-sur-Lausanne / Suisse
http://www.vrais-visages.net/
Blog: http://oii-suisse.blogspot.com/

Other related links on the DSD controversy:

Saturday, August 26, 2006
Three intersex activists defend children against pejorative terminology
Monday, September 11, 2006
DSD - Is there really a consensus?
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Handbook for Parents is transphobic and homophobic
Friday, September 22, 2006
DSD Consortium: Homophobia and transphobia exposed
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Alice Dreger: Disorders of Sex Development
Thursday, September 28, 2006
DREGER IN DENIAL
DSD - Silencing Intersex Voices – International support letters:
Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - United Kingdom
Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - Canada
Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - France
Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - Switzerland

For more articles on OII's website

DREGER IN DENIAL

2006-09-28T19:12:00.000-07:00

By Curtis Hinkle, OII

September 28, 2006

Today Alice Dreger posted a page in her website that at first reads as a claim that she is NOT resigning from the DSD Consortium:

“Ooo, I have something in common with Angelina Jolie! We’re both the subject of wild rumors on the internet!”

“The rumors about me say I resigned from the DSD Consortium and that I resigned over a shift in language.”

http://www.alicedreger.com/dsd

Dreger goes on to elaborate that she doesn’t really support the term “disorders of sex development” as a replacement for “intersex”.

“Since the publication of the handbooks, a number of intersex adults, including a number of my intersex friends and colleagues, have expressed doubt and sometimes serious displeasure at the term DSDs. They feel it medicalizes and pathologizes them, and I understand what they’re talking about. In fact, I’ve noticed that when I talk to specialist pediatricians and stressed-out parents of affected young children, I say “DSDs,” and when I talk to almost anyone else, I say “intersex.” I’m personally more comfortable with “intersex.””

However, we have recently exposed Dreger in her own words on the record as having been one of the principal instigators of and staunch promoters of the use of that terminology. There’s just no getting away from it Alice, you really did push this terminology onto intersex people, and with considerable determination:

Alice Dreger: Disorders of Sex Development:
http://oii-usa.blogspot.com/2006/09/alice-dreger-disorders-of-sex.html

In today’s denial page, Dreger goes on to say:

“As a historian, I have to wonder whether a lot of the intense discussions among intersex adults is happening because it is something they can do. Most politically-conscious intersex adults want to see change happen in medicine and society, but they don’t have the resources to do major social change or medical reform work. But there are things they can do instead of ripping into each other over language.”

Here we see Dreger claiming special elite status as a “historian” to paternalistically dismiss intersex people as being powerless to speak for themselves and effect social change, and to accuse intersex people of “ripping into each other over language”.

However, those are obviously distorted, disingenuous, self-serving claims:

Intersex people are NOT ripping into each other over language. We are ripping into Dreger over HER use of language. And we appear to be doing it quite effectively, thank you!

Furthermore, independent of Dreger’s claim, intersex people DO have the power to speak for themselves and press for social change and reform. And we sure don’t need interlopers like Dreger putting us down as being unable to defend ourselves, and then seizing centerstage and speaking for us!

Later in her denial page, Dreger pleads to be let off the hook, saying “Oh, come on people, who cares?”, as if it doesn’t matter what the truth really is.

“All right, you’ve heard what I think about the terms. So what’s the truth about me? Oh, come on people, who cares? Please don’t waste your time on me!”

To intersex people, that statement is an incredible slap in the face – by someone who has pathologized us and now seeks an escape from responsibility, hoping that nobody really “cares”.

In her conclusion, Dreger finally reverses the impression created at the beginning of the page, and admits that she resigned from the DSD Consortium:

“Here’s what happened: Yes, I resigned from the DSD Consortium. No, it had nothing to do with the language or any other political or philosophical issue in the intersex rights movement. I continue to fully support the handbooks.”

Of course she claims it had nothing to do with the huge backlash that’s developed against the DSD terminology and against her over-promotion of the use of that terminology.

Instead she says:

“I resigned for personal reasons.”

Alice Dreger has claimed in many places that “disorders of sex development” is the preferred terminology for intersex people – but now claims that she is “uncomfortable” with the DSD terminology. Thus she stands exposed as duplicitous.

We suggest that Dreger is being duplicitous about her resignation too. It seems that she is in denial, unable to take the heat from the backlash against DSD - and THAT has everything to do with “language”.

Other related links on the DSD controversy:

Saturday, August 26, 2006
Three intersex activists defend children against pejorative terminology
Monday, September 11, 2006
DSD - Is there really a consensus?
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Handbook for Parents is transphobic and homophobic
Friday, September 22, 2006
DSD Consortium: Homophobia and transphobia exposed
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Alice Dreger: Disorders of Sex Development
Thursday, September 28, 2006
DREGER IN DENIAL
DSD - Silencing Intersex Voices – International support letters:
Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - United Kingdom
Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - Canada
Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - France
Alice Dreger: DSD - Silencing intersex voices - Switzerland

For more articles on OII's website

Alice Dreger: Disorders of Sex Development

2006-09-26T15:08:00.000-07:00

A report from OII, Edited by Curtis E. Hinkle

This information is now on our website and more user-friendly:

http://www.intersexualite.org/AliceDreger.html

September 26, 2006
http://oii-usa.blogspot.com/2006/09/alice-dreger-disorders-of-sex.html

Alice Dreger recently announced that she is resigning from the Consortium on the Management of Disorders of Sex Development (“The DSD Consortium”), and is trying to distance herself from the pathologizing terminology being used by that Consortium – as if she never had anything to do with it.

In a letter dated September 15, 2006 and addressed to "Dear handbook contributor", Dreger said:

"I am writing to let you know that I am resigning from the DSD Consortium and to make a few suggestions about avenues that might be pursued to further the work we did together. . ."

". . . Work on ways to ensure that the language of "disorders of sex development" does not result in negative experiences for people with DSDs and their families (Even while this language has allowed productive dialog, we have already seen that some affected individuals find this language to be stigmatizing and unnecessarily pathologizing). . ." – Alice Dreger

However, Ms. Dreger cannot rewrite history and escape her record as a major champion of the use of "disorders of sex development" (DSD) as the umbrella term for intersex variations.

Dreger is the editor-in-chief of the new ISNA handbooks which heavily promote that terminology, and it was to the contributors to those handbooks that she sent her recent letter:

http://www.dsdguidelines.org/htdocs/clinical/index.html
http://www.dsdguidelines.org/htdocs/parents/index.html

Dreger is even credited by ISNA as being the prime mover who brought those handbooks forward:

“Perhaps most importantly, Alice acted as project manager and editor-in-chief for the DSD Consortium’s clinical guidelines and parents’ handbook. These groundbreaking consensus documents would not have happened without her extraordinary talents and efforts. She is continuing her work as Project Coordinator for the DSD Consortium.” – ISNA Website

http://www.isna.org/about/dreger

Furthermore, Dreger’s job title at Northwestern University includes that very terminology:

Alice Dreger . . . serves as the project coordinator for publications of the Consortium on the Management of Disorders of Sex Development.

http://www.medschool.northwestern.edu/mhb/faculty/dreger.html

Perhaps most significantly, Dreger, as a new hire at Northwestern University, was the principal author of a journal article that began the Consortium’s process of popularizing their terminology as a replacement for intersex, both within and outside the medical community:

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

http://www.medhelp.org/ais/PDFs/Dreger-Nomenclature-2005.pdf

Dreger’s disorders paper 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):

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

http://nichdnet.psych.psu.edu/
http://nichdnet.psych.psu.edu/aims.html
http://www.intersexualite.org/English_OII/IAIA/IAIA_index.html

As lead author of the “disorders paper” and as a spokesperson for the Consortium, Dreger became a staunch defender of that terminology, even as the early backlash developed (although using somewhat obscure logic in her defenses), as seen in a March 2006 ISNA blog entry:

http://www.isna.org/node/1028

Note: That entry has recently been removed from the ISNA blog page. However, it is still online at the following cached mirror-site, and there is also a saved version in the OII archives, for those who wish to confirm this evidence:

http://tinyurl.com/gz57y

To counter the escalating backlash, Dreger and ISNA ramped up their efforts to promote the terminology on behalf of the DSD Consortium during 2006 – including helping with widespread dissemination of a so-called “medical consensus statement” published on May 4, 2006 and again in August 2006. However, contrary to all appearances, that “consensus” involved many medical DSD supporters but had almost no intersex representation.

“Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders”, by I A Hughes, et al; Archives of Disease in Childhood ac98319 Module 2 5/4/06:
http://www.medhelp.org/ais/PDFs/Chicago-Consensus-Statement-06.pdf

“Summary of Consensus Statement on Intersex Disorders and Their Management”, Christopher P. Houk, et al; PEDIATRICS Vol. 118 No. 2 August 2006, pp. 753-757
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/extract/118/2/753

“DSDs and the Chicago Consensus Meeting/Statement”, AISSG-UK
http://www.medhelp.org/ais/15_ANNOUNCE.HTM#16%20Aug%202006

The terminology was then positioned for major national exposure, in a glowing article about Cheryl Chase in the New York Times on September 24, 2006:

"What if It’s (Sort of) a Boy and (Sort of) a Girl?"
http://tinyurl.com/jju2h

However, those efforts have clearly failed, because of the huge backlash that has developed in the intersex community against such terminology – and as prominent researchers such as Prof. Milton Diamond made eloquent pleas for the use of less pathologizing language:

“Variations of Sex Development Instead of Disorders of Sex Development”,
Milton Diamond, ADC-Online, 27 July 2006.
http://adc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/91/7/554#2460

Just one month before she announced her resignation, and now under obvious pressure, Dreger posted an entry in her blog entitled “My Identity/Politics”, in which she said:

“Do I sometimes take crap from people in identity rights movements (like the intersex rights movement) for being a supposed interloper? Sure, sometimes. But most people figure out that it’s a good thing to have someone capable helping out.” – Alice Dreger, 14 August 2006
http://www.alicedreger.com/identity_politics

By then many intersex people were asking themselves: “With friends like that, who needs enemies?”

And now, in the midst of an unstoppable backlash, Dreger has suddenly announced that she is resigning from the DSD Consortium – and goes on to criticize others for using the very terminology she has so widely promoted.

Here we have yet another interloper (her own word) who intrudes into the lives of intersex people and does great harm against us, without getting to know us in large numbers and consulting us, and without giving us a real voice through her writings. Then, when the going gets rough and the harm she’d been doing is exposed, she is now simply walking away - leaving it to others to clean up the mess she created.

Other related links on the DSD controversy:

For more articles on OII's website

DSD Consortium: Homophobia and transphobia exposed

2006-09-22T18:11:00.000-07:00

Very oddly, the DSD Consortium handbook website lists no DSD Consortium address, contact information or member information, but simply posts links to the brochures published by ISNA, as you'll see at the following links:

http://www.dsdguidelines.org/
http://www.dsdguidelines.org/about/consortium

In particular, the Consortium website does not mention the actual "research" group behind this front, namely the "The Network on Psychosexual Differentiation", funded by the NICHD and based at Penn State and Northwestern University:

http://www.intersexualite.org/English_OII/IAIA/IAIA_index.html
http://nichdnet.psych.psu.edu/

Nor does it mention the pathologizing language in the "mission statement" of that group:
http://nichdnet.psych.psu.edu/aims.html

The DSD Consortium website also fails to mention that the principle author/editor of consortium information is Ms. Alice Dreger, a failed academic who recently resigned her position from Michigan State University under a cloud of acrimony (she has since written highly negative things about academic life). Dreger has recently been hired by Northwestern University into an administrative position as a spokesperson for NU's sex research, with the title of "Project Coordinator for publications of the Consortium on the Management of Disorders of Sex Development".

Among other things, Dreger is a defender of the notorious J. Michael Bailey, a disgraced faculty member who is a member of NU's sex research group. Mr. Bailey is well-known for advocating homosexual eugenics, and was a key participant in the early meetings that established the pathologizing terminology and mission of the DSD consortium, as you'll see in the attendee lists:

http://nichdnet.psych.psu.edu/meetings.html

Mr. Bailey's work has become notorious in the GBLT community for his defamations of GLBT people, and he has been denounced by almost all key advocacy groups, as in these examples:

http://www.glaad.org/action/write_now_detail.php?id=3827
http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/NYTBisexualityFactSheet.pdf
http://advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid29121.asp
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=96

Furthermore, gay media have recently refused to take ads for research subjects from projects that involve Bailey in their work:

http://tinyurl.com/h8o7v

Could it be that Ms. Dreger wishes to minimize the exposure of the DSD Consortium's close ties with the pathologizing thinking of such infamous Northwestern University sex researchers?

-----------------
UPDATE Sept. 24, 2006: Ms. Dreger is planning to resign from the DSD Consortium. She has apparently cracked under the pressure of the exposure of the "DSD pathologizations" that she and Cheryl Chase and the NICHD crowd recently launched against intersex people. She now appears to be going into denial that she had anything to do with this mess, even though she was one of the principle authors of it all!
-----------------

Chicago Free Press
August 9, 2006

Editorial: Bad Science

Recently, CFP ran an ad for a research study seeking gay men with gay brothers. The study is based at Northwestern University and other institutions.

A few CFP readers looked into the study and found that one of the principal researchers is Northwestern psychology professor J. Michael Bailey.

Bailey is a controversial figure, to say the least. His 2003 book, “The Man Who Would Be Queen,” has been heavily criticized by transgender activists, who say it falsely characterizes transgenders as “especially motivated” to shoplift and asserts that “the single most common occupation” of transgenders is prostitution. The book was not footnoted, as serious research commonly is, and some Chicago transgenders said Bailey befriended them in bars and never told them he was using them as subjects for his book, which is clearly wrong.

Northwestern officials investigated the complaints, and while they would not comment on their findings, Bailey subsequently resigned as chairman of the school’s psychology department, although he remains on staff there. Bailey never responded to CFP questions about his book or his research. He has since created a “Book Controversy Question & Answer” section on his website, but it doesn’t address any of the allegations listed above.

The book is not the only controversial aspect to Bailey’s research. The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation blasted Bailey and an article about his research in the New York Times in 2005. The subject of that article, a research paper co-written by Bailey and a graduate student, asserted, “It remains to be shown that male bisexuality exists.” Bailey based that claim on experiments involving a widely discredited scientific instrument developed in Stalinist Czechoslovakia in the 1950s to measure soldiers’ responses to sexual stimuli.

Media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting said in a statement about the Times article, “In suggesting that men who claim a bisexual sexual orientation are liars, the Times relies heavily on a single study whose senior researcher has a career marked by ethics controversies and eugenics proposals.”

Bailey has also generalized that gay men tend to be feminine boys, and part of his current study is aimed at pursuing that theory. He has generalized that most gay men are ashamed of being perceived as feminine, an assertion that demonstrates how Bailey lets his own feelings and assumptions about what’s masculine or feminine, even gay or straight, guide his findings.

The current study is also aimed at finding a genetic basis for homosexuality. If that were discovered, and parents were consequently able to ensure that their offspring were not gay (something that many scientists believe isn’t possible), Bailey has said that such a choice “would be morally unproblematic.”

“It is quite hard to see how being heterosexual causes any harm to the child,” Bailey said at a 2004 forum at Northwestern.

Thanks to the heads-up from our readers, we looked into Bailey’s involvement in this study and found it to be substantial. Since we cannot in good conscience steer our readers to a study that Bailey is part of, we’re canceling the ad. And in the future, before accepting any ads for research studies, our ad staff will ask who is involved. If Bailey is, we won’t accept the ads.

There are other researchers involved in this study. They may have good motives, but we question their association with Bailey. We appreciate good science. We don’t appreciate being used to further the dubious agenda of someone who believes he should not be held accountable to our community.

Handbook for Parents is transphobic and homophobic

2006-09-21T10:56:00.000-07:00

Early Surgical Tools

The Consortium for the Management of Disorders of Sex Development in Children has published a handbook specifically for parents of children born intersexed or as the Consortium prefers to call them – disordered in their sex development. It is very revealing that the consortium has published handbooks for doctors and for parents but nothing intended for the actual child. There is a reason for this. The Consortium serves the interests of the two groups just mentioned at the expense of the child being managed.

This Handbook for Parents is very misleading and gives parents a lot of misinformation about intersexed children. It minimizes the suffering and trauma that many have reported over the years about being assigned the wrong gender and also being persecuted for being lesbian or gay. The propaganda in this handbook repeatedly brushes aside the serious issues of transphobia and homophobia which many of us have experienced from our earliest years and throughout life. The handbook is not about making intersexed children actually feel secure and comfortable with themselves but more about assuring the parents that their intersexed children will most likely NOT be transsexual or homosexual.

The Consortium has heralded these publications as advances in the healthcare of intersex children and not about gender. However, if one takes the time to read the Handbook for Parents, that is all it is about – gender. And how could it be about much of anything else? The whole reason for combining a lot of different conditions which have nothing in common medically under the umbrella term “disorder of sex development” is not to treat real health conditions of intersexed children but to relieve the sufferings and anxieties that gender "ambiguity" provokes within society.

The introduction of the Handbook for Parents makes this very clear:

‘’This handbook does not include a large amount of medical information about your child’s specific condition. That is because there are many conditions that count as disorders of sex development (DSDs), so it would be impossible for us to cover them all. Instead, this book is meant to give you some basic information about sex and gender development.’’

The actual research on intersexed children is not truthfully dealt with in this handbook and one needs to ask why. The actual experiences of thousands of intersexed adults are not dealt with either. Many intersexed adults have denounced not only the early, barbaric treatments but also the very reason for the treatments – to assign a gender without consent or input from the child. Many have also denounced the homophobia that they were subjected to in childhood and later in life. Their narratives and personal experiences are almost invisible and actually trivialized in this handbook so as to give comfort to parents who most likely do not want homosexual or transsexual children.

Parents should be told truthfully that their intersex child is more likely to reject the imposed sex assignment and they should be prepared for just how difficult it will be in most states to do this, if not outright impossible. They should be prepared to cope with the intense trauma and psychological damage that adults have reported who are transsexual or intersexed and assigned the wrong sex. They should be prepared to deal with the very large number of intersexed people who have felt very damaged by the gender they were assigned and there are many of them and more and more are coming forward each day.

We also know that intersexed adults are much more likely to be lesbian or gay and this should not be trivialized or brushed off as it is in this manual. The mistreatment that young children are subjected to who are homosexual is not dealt with adequately and since the parents are usually heterosexual, they are probably not able to understand the long-term damage that many lesbians and gays have reported from such abusive treatment and prejudice they experienced growing up.

One of the most glaring contradictions between the handbook for parents and the handbook for doctors of intersexed infants is rooted in the very transphobia which permeates these documents. The Handbook for Parents repeatedly states that we do not know what determines a child’s gender identity. The Handbook for Doctors repeatedly assures other doctors who are assigning the gender of intersex infants that they can do this quite easily by simply following the guidelines based on the intersex condition of the infant. How could we have no clue what determines gender identity on the one hand and on the other be so sure that you can determine the gender arbitrarily by following the guidelines of the DSD experts? Well, it is quite simple. It is always the child who is disordered in these handbooks. If the intersex child rejects the arbitrary sex assignment, they have another disorder. What started out as a disorder of the child’s sex has become a disorder of the child’s gender and the doctors are still totally correct at all points of the treatment protocols and the child is always wrong and suffering from a disorder.

Another interesting transphobic detail, other than constantly asserting that intersex children almost never reject their sex assignment, is expressed when we read that in very rare cases the child may grow up and seek a sex change along with surgical and hormone treatments. Nowhere does this expert mention the most likely fact that the adult had already been surgically altered in childhood without consent. An interesting omission because these earlier surgical procedures can have severe consequences later in life by totally altering the genitalia and sensitive tissue making adult surgery much more difficult.

This document does not prepare parents for the problems that normalization often causes such as post traumatic stress and other psychological damage to the child. What is so tragic is that in this handbook for parents the disorder is always in the child and the parents are given the false impression that all will be well, i.e., that most likely their child will not be gay or trans. Many of us feel that the parents would be better served by learning to deal with their own prejudices if they have any and embracing the richness of identities within the intersex community. Those identities are conspicuously absent in this handbook because the subtext of homophobia and transphobia make it almost impossible to not think that part of the normalization process is to prevent other “disorders” also.

Our Policy - This is a No Normalization Zone

2006-09-19T16:22:00.000-07:00

OII proudly stands behind its NO NORMALIZATION ZONE policy:

OII respects opinions from different intersexed people and groups. You will most likely find opinions and ideas on our site which are controversial. However, we in the intersex community have been so normalised against our consent that we feel any attempt to "normalise" the opinions and expression of those in the intersex community would only further damage us as a community. Therefore, people are allowed to be controversial, to disagree, to simply be themselves and state how they feel about intersex without worrying who might take offense, including other members of OII. We also invite intersex perspectives on controversial topics and issues such as sexuality, religion, politics and other issues. We want visitors to see the diversity within the intersex community, and invite our allies to look for those of us whom they feel comfortable with and join us as part of our movement for human rights. If you don't like what one person says here, just look a little further and another intersex person will probably be on your wavelength.

Our Policy:

No NORMALISATION of views or expression. No intersex voices censured here, even those which might be hard to understand or objectionable to some people. Help us to Stop The Harm through sharing and education.

New Guidelines for Sex Development Disorders - Parody

2006-09-19T13:07:00.000-07:00

Sci-Fi by Curtis E. Hinkle

Release Date: Sept. 19, 2006
Planet Normalis Hermaphroditus

One particular planet in our galaxy has been plagued recently by more and more births of children who differentiate sexually into extreme male or female and this has caused the doctors and parents who are all hermaphrodites to study the underlying causes of this abnormality within their population. As a result, the doctors and parents have just announced the publication of new guidelines for the management of children born with disorders of sex differentiation, also known as DSD’s. The goal of the Consortium, a group of hermaphrodite doctors who wish to help male and female children by making them appear hermaphroditic, is to normalize these children so as to help both their parents who are hermaphrodites and the children themselves by making it possible for them to fit into a unisex society.

Sept. 19, 2006 — A consensus statement published in the September issue of the Archives of Disorders of early Childhood reviews the management of sex differentiation disorders in children.

"The birth of a child that is not a hermaphrodite prompts a long term management strategy that involves a myriad of professionals working with the family," writes Ian A. Phooey, MD, and colleagues from the Consensus Group from the Department of Pediatrics, University of Juno, Confederation Galactica.

"The initial contact with the parents of a child with a DSD is important, as first impressions from these encounters often persist," the panel writes. "A key point to emphasize is that the DSD child has the potential to become a well adjusted, functional member of society and pseudo-hermaphrodite who for all intents and purposes will be visibly indistinguishable from a true hermaphrodite."

Clinical evaluation should include family and prenatal history, general physical examination to detect any associated dysmorphic features, and assessment of the genital anatomy in comparison with published norms typical for hermaphrodites. Features suggesting DSD include overt genital absence of a phalloclit or a vaginal opening, a phalloclit that is too long or too short and gonads which are not mixed. The underlying causes could be a result of insensitivity to estrotestrogen and/or a lack of an extra X chromosome, making them XX or XY instead of XXY.

They have come to the following conclusions:

- All children must be legally hermaphrodites and be normalized to look like hermaphrodites.

- All phalloclits which are more than one inch long will be surgically corrected to appear normal.

- All phalloclits that are shorter than 2 centimeters will be hormonally corrected by testosterone injections.

- Any child born without a vaginal opening will be surgically corrected.

- In the end, all children will have phalloclits and vaginas and will be ready to participate in a unisex society.

The treatments to maintain health and normalization will need to be life long and any identities that do not conform to intergender (or hermaphroditic identity development) will be treated as a gender identity disorder and a specialist will help the children and adults develop a healthy hermaphroditic gender identity (intergender) so as to avoid extreme male and female identities which are bipolar disorder deviations.

The local Male and Female Human Rights Association on the planet heralded this as an advance in health care for all children who were born with a male or female sex differentiation disorder. Some splinter groups of males and females who actually are much bigger than the MFHRA are declaring this to be a violation of their human rights and demand to be accepted as the males and females they are.

The doctors and parents laughed at such a silly notion. The very idea - to let THOSE people have a say in our planetary affairs.

Our true faces – Why ask for help?

2006-09-19T10:21:00.000-07:00

Being lesbian, gay, bi, trans, intersexed or a combination thereof is simply one variation among many other natural variations within the human population, perhaps less frequent, but just as normal and legitimate as any others which are part of what it means to be a human being. These variations are in no way a disorder, dysfunction, mental illness, nor a perversion and are not the result of faulty parental upbringing. They are also not a sin. They are ways of expressing the true face of the person, an aspect of the self which constitutes its deepest meaning and richness and one of the most essential components of the individual's identity. Why then seek help?

Article by Marie-Noëlle Baechler of OII-Switzerland
Translated from the French by Curtis E. Hinkle

(Disclaimer: The following is written within a Swiss legal/medical context and may not apply to laws in different states in the United States or in other countries. This is provided as a service to those wishing to know more about current thinking within other countries and is not meant to be taken as medical advice outside the jurisdiction of the author.)

It often turns out that from birth on, we grow up in an environment which denies us our right to our true face, which refuses to recognize our existence and forces us to hide this real face and disappear. We are denigrated and treated as having an illness or some type of dysfunction and this wounds us deeply and leaves profound and lasting scars.

Children's basic emotional needs

In order to grow up and develop a balanced sense of internal security, a feeling of wholeness that allows them to reach out to others and form well-adjusted relationships without dependency, a child needs to feel emotionally validated by their parents. They need to develop a sense of self-worth along with the parents. They also need to be given the opportunity to learn how to find their own way in life and cope with the difficulties which lie ahead. When they are not able to experience this, they remain dependent and that makes life very difficult.

A very destructive rejection

To have parents who refuse to listen to us when we feel different and to have to endure their violent reactions and be forced to behave like them, to react and live according to their norms by denying who we are is just the opposite of affectionate and emotional validation which we so needed as children. A child subjected to such treatment is sent a very powerful message that they are fundamentally bad, dysfunctional and unworthy. And when you are a child (or even a teenager) and dependent on them, it is extremely difficult to resist such messages and rebel against your parents.

Furthermore, this message does not end once out the door. It is reinforced at school, in the streets and in the media. And there are even many so-called mental health specialists and psychologists who also do not hesitate to spread and infect others with their own homophobia and transphobia.

Very serious and long-lasting consequences

To be born and brought up in such an atmosphere often induces a sense of sadness, depression, exclusion and not being able to form relationships with others. The child has such self doubt about their own self worth that it can become very difficult to meet new challenges and to establish affectionate and emotionally stable relationships with those they love. Some resort to substance abuse as a way to cope with the internalized suffering. Others go so far as to commit suicide.

A helping relationship based on respect and your specific needs

If this has happened to you, you may benefit from help from a professional chosen by you to meet your specific needs. The purpose should not be to normalize you but to help you accept yourself as you are and to integrate your difference as part of your overall self-worth and intrinsic richness. Such help can also give you the opportunity to finally experience the richness that you have to offer others and a sense of knowing who you are and what you need and enable you to meet the challenges which lie ahead. Such an experience can change your life. Such help can also assist you in coping with the abuse that you have been subjected to and to deal with your anger and resistance as important feelings worthy of respect and how to cope with these feelings in a positive manner.

Just because your parents were not able to able to accept you and love you as you were does not mean that you should continue living in the prison they locked you in as part of their effort to control you. Even though you might not have any other experience to compare your childhood with, that does not mean that what you were subjected to was normal. To change and free oneself takes courage but an increasing number of people have done it and know that embarking on this journey of liberation is worth it.

If you feel you could benefit from this type of help, it is essential that you find someone who will meet your specific needs and not the guidelines of a specific ideology, regardless of what that ideology might be. You have a right to demand unconditional respect of your identity, including your sexual orientation, gender and intersexuality. This is about an essential part of who you are, your true face and you are in no way obligated to accept help from someone who does not understand this. On the contrary, you can look elsewhere for someone who will respect you. You also have the right to demand that you be in control of your own life and to choose the method, pace and the approach which best suits you. If confronted with someone who is not able to accept you as the person you are, you have the right to refuse to be taken in by their reactions. You have the right to go elsewhere when confronted with an inadequate therapist.

You have the right to protect yourself

If you are a minor whose parents refuse to accept you for who you are and have made you go to a psychiatrist to be normalized, it is very important that you know that you don't owe this person anything, especially not the truth if telling the truth will be used to manipulate you, destabilize you and subject you to total submission and fragmentation. If you find yourself in a similar situation and are being confronted with a therapist who is not respectful towards the real you as lesbian/gay/trans or intersexed, do not hesitate to take all necessary measures to protect yourself. You do not owe anything to anyone who does not respect your true face and who acts in violation of basic ethical guidelines. And if you have trouble doing this by yourself, you may find help from a local LGBTI association.

OII- Virginia

2006-09-19T07:18:00.000-07:00

Dalelynn L. Sims is an accidental activist and gender educator working toward advancement and diffusion of knowledge and understanding on gender issues. She is a former adjunct faculty member of three Community Colleges and has a degree in Christian Studies. It was her military experience that was instrumental in Dalelynn taking a stand about issues of gender. She was the person who actually helped start OII by getting a website developed for intersexed people who were not just English speaking, but from a variety of backgrounds and cultures. Dalelynn lives in the Brunswick County, Virginia with her partner and Harley, the wonder dog.

OII - Georgia

2006-09-19T06:47:00.000-07:00

Rara Starblanket is a Chippewa Métis and is the council rep for Georgia and Florida, for the Métis Nations of the South.

Rara is a musician in the Atlanta area and has done this for the last 40 years, traveling around Canada and the U.S.

For more information and an essay on Two-Spirits, visit OII’s website at:

http://www.intersexualite.org/TwoSpirit.html

OII - Colorado

2006-09-17T21:03:00.000-07:00

Bobbie Ritacco

Bobbie was born intersexed, (CAH - XX), raised as male and later corrected the wrongly imposed sex assignment. She has 20 years experience as a systems engineer/manager and is now a nurse since a mid life career change. Her hobbies are skiing, the outdoors, and riding her Harley Davidson motorcycle.

OII - Texas

2006-09-14T21:44:00.000-07:00

Reade Sitton is a Senior Information Technology Consultant with a degree in economics and business data processing. His areas of interest are currently web development, and web programming with emphasis on open source languages and software. Porting of current platform specific software to platform independent forms. In the long term, "push button" automation of any kind involving computers specifically leading to better public policy. Application of such public policy within various political and economic systems worldwide.

Reade is a proud supporter and ally of the gay and lesbian community and has recently been very active in learning about intersex and listening to our stories, our experiences and aspirations. We thank him for his solidarity and support.

Member: http://allies.tamu.edu/

Medical Fraud and Quackery (Satire)

2006-09-14T06:06:00.000-07:00

A fable by Curtis E. Hinkle

Imagine a world in which people were only allowed to have blonde or brown hair. The inhabitants of this world are totally convinced that all people can be divided into only two categories – those with blonde hair and those with brown hair. This is a myth but one that is so entrenched in the minds of the inhabitants that when a child is born with orange hair, they simply insist that the child’s hair really is either blonde or brown and they need to have experts from the medical community to help them diagnose what condition has resulted in the child’s disorder of hair development or DHD, formerly simply known as orange hair.

More and more orange haired people were starting to live openly without hiding their orange hair and were proclaiming that they were actually pleased with their natural color hair and resented all the prolonged enforced treatments that they had been subjected to in order to make them appear to have blonde or brown hair. A certain group called the Orange Hair Society of the Universe had been instrumental in making people with orange hair feel they had some right to be who they were.

As the years went by, the people in OHSU started insisting that they really were blonde and brown haired people and that in fact very few people born with orange hair actually identified as orange-haired people. They later decided that it would be better to do away with the very term used in the name of their organization – Orange Hair – and replace it with the term DHD – Disorder of Hair Development, but keep the name of the organization the same.

Many people with orange hair were very disturbed by this new terminology which made their hair color an illness and a disorder to be treated in childhood, something they had been working to change. Those who objected to this new disorder concept also felt that this would make children with orange hair even more ashamed and likely to want to hide who they were in a society structured only to accommodate people with blonde or brown hair.

The OHSU started selling guidelines that medical quacks had come up with for dying the hair of all infants born with orange hair. In this consensus statement published by a Consortium for the management of infants born with DHD’s, a whole group of very different medical illnesses and disorders were grouped together under this new medical diagnosis called a Disorder of Hair Development. The OHSU published news releases with great fanfare stating that this was a big breakthrough for the treatment of children born with orange hair and that these new guidelines written by quacks would finally help us move away from the single-minded focus on hair color and start dealing with the real health problems of children with DHD’s.

What was so fraudulent about all this was that this new diagnosis – DHD – included diseases that had nothing at all in common. It included diseases that affected a sizeable part of the population but very rarely resulted in orange hair along with other conditions that always caused infants to be born with orange hair and other conditions which might cause an individual to develop orange hair later in life. The underlying causes for developing orange hair were so different that one was left to wonder how this new diagnostic scheme could actually facilitate any sort of recommendations concerning medical care for people with this new disorder other than treating the color of the hair because that was the only thing that all these different conditions had in common. Other than that, the health needs of the individual children with DHD’s would be so different from group to group, condition to condition, that a consensus would actually be impossible because they had no real medical illnesses in common.

Adults affected with orange hair started reading the guidelines and discovered that the whole consensus was simply fraudulent in its allegations that this was about treating the real health needs of infants with orange hair. After reading through the guidelines of the Consortium, many adults with orange hair realized that the guidelines were nothing but a handbook for removing any evidence of orange hair that would be visible in public and telling the parents and legal authorities which color of hair the infant really should have – blonde or brown. Each condition which might produce an infant with orange hair was accompanied by the appropriate blonde or brown hair category and that category would be imposed on the child without consent based solely on the condition the child was born with.

The OHSU has published in it latest press release that these guidelines published by the Consortium for the management of Disorders of Hair Development in infants are not about hair color but a great step forward in the health care of orange haired people.

Cancer in Our Lives

2006-09-12T20:51:00.000-07:00

Join us at “Cancer in Our Lives” a two-day event in San Francisco October 13th and 14th, 2006. See attached event flyer.

We know that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people are at greater risk for some cancers and less likely to access necessary and appropriate diagnostic and treatment resources.

In this two day event we will put a personal face on cancer in our communities, confront our unique obstacles to care, look at the promising science emerging to prevent some cancers and talk with each other about what strategic steps are needed to move forward in this fight.

To learn more about this exciting event and to register to attend visit
www.wcrc.org/lgbtqi

Friday, October 13, 2006
Health Professionals Focus on Cancer

In collaboration with the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association annual conference.
Parc 55 hotel, San Francisco
$50 registration fee. No one turned away.

Saturday, October 14, 2006
Community Focus on Cancer
San Francisco LGBT Community Center
1800 Market Street, San Francisco
This event is free.

Visit the event website for a complete program listing, to register for Friday, Saturday or both days and for additional details.
www.wcrc.org/lgbtqi

To learn more about the 24th annual Gay and Lesbian Medical Association Conference visit www.glma.org

Event partners making this dialog possible include the American Cancer Society, CA Division, Inc., the California Breast Cancer Research Program, the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, the Lesbian Health & Research Center, the Mount Zion Health Fund, the San Francisco Public Health Department, the UCSF Comprehensive Cancer Center, the UCSF Department of Urology and the Women’s Cancer Resource Center in Oakland.

DSD - Is there really a consensus?

2006-09-11T20:21:00.000-07:00

Photo: Leading DSD Expert

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://oii-usa.blogspot.com/2006/08/three-intersex-activists-defend.html

Scroll down to read letters from intersex activists about DSD on the following site:
http://adc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/91/7/554
You will notice that those in favor are mainly doctors.

The Organisation Intersex International did a survey:
http://www.intersexualite.org/English_OII/IAIA/IAIA_index.html
DSD Survey results thus far:
http://www.intersexualite.org/English_OII/dsd_survey/dsd_survey.html

Jim Costich - OII - New York

2006-09-08T21:44:00.000-07:00

Jim Costich is a very talented writer, singer and parent by choice. He is a very proud intersex gay man. We are very pleased in OII-USA that he is willing to share his many talents and insights on intersex and its intersections with other communities. Jim's primary focus is on community building with GLBT allies and empowerment through solidarity with other oppressed minorities.

You can read some of Jim's writings on our website at:
http://www.intersexualite.org/English_OII/IAIA/Jim/Jim_Writing.html

Being Different And Fitting In

2006-09-08T21:37:00.000-07:00

By David Cameron

OII-USA Spokesperson for Human Rights

Visit OII-USA's new website at:
http://www.intersexualite.org/oii-usa-index.html

Visit our international site: The largest intersex organisation in the world

Organisation Intersex International

I can’t believe I’ll turn 60 next year. I’m amazed I’ve lived this long and survived my life as a queer person of sorts. It has never been an easy journey; in fact, it’s been very difficult, being different and trying to fit in, not only in the two-sex/two-gender binary system at large, but also in the ever-evolving gay culture. Most people when they see me read me as a “tall masculine guy,” but that wasn’t always the case and in some ways still isn’t. I’m still seeking a welcoming community where I feel comfortable and accepted for who I am.

One’s sex is different from one’s gender identity. Both are different from one’s sexual orientation. The religious right likes to meld us all into one, as if we were all the same queer species. Gay men/males come in all colors, styles, sexed anatomies, expressions and sexual experience. We need to celebrate the diversity that we bring to our irreplaceable and special world.

We are diverse gay men! But what do we mean by “gay men” and, in particular, what do we mean by “male” or “man”? We know the stereotypical characteristics that all gay males/men are supposed to possess: hyper-masculinized appearance, an adequate phallus/penis size (hopefully something over 3 inches when erect), and being able to stand to pee. But what else should we possess in the sexual anatomy department? Well, I guess we’re supposed to have two testicles in a scrotum that produces sperm and testosterone (and some estrogen so we act nice occasionally). And we need sex chromosomes, which are XY for the standard-looking male.

Can a gay male/man have any other sexual anatomy than what we presume to be standard or normal? There are many boys born with micro-penis, and in the past century many were reassigned female and given vaginoplasties. Yikes! Doctors seem to think a man needs an adequate penis only for vaginal sex. Some people are born with ova-testis and others with blind vaginas. People come in all sorts of sex chromosome variations too: XXY, XXX, XYY, XXYY, XXXY, XO, XY females (known as androgen insensitivity syndrome) and XX men, XY/XXY and all sorts of other mosaic patterns.

Can any of these persons be considered males/men? It depends on how they identify, if they are not aborted first. Although most people on the planet come in the two standard-sexed bodies, many of us do not. Depending on how “intersex” is defined, variations exist in anywhere from 1 in 150 to 1 in 2000 births. Doctors still perform infant genital surgeries (and hormonal interventions) five times a day in the USA. I guess they feel pressured by our binary-addicted culture. How can a doctor decide what is best for a child’s future sex life? What if that child were destined to grow up into a gay man?

When I was 13 and puberty came, I knew I was different from other boys. I still hadn’t developed like others, and I was often teased for having small testicles, and I had gynecomastica (breast growth in a male). I was also very tall; by 15, I was 6’ 9”. My energy was very low and I was a shy, awkward, emotional, self-conscious and sensitive “feminine” kid. My parents were concerned about my lack of development. They were told by the family doctor I would grow up to be “normal” and be able to have children.

I experimented sexually a lot with boys starting in junior high and struggled with my sense of gender and sexuality all through college. I was told by religious leaders that the feelings I had for men were just a phase and that I would eventually turn heterosexual. I tried to be bisexual and had a few girlfriends. In my mid-twenties, I enjoyed dressing up in drag and discovered a whole newworld that was exciting and creative. I came to hate traditional gender roles with a vengeance! And I wasn’t sure what world I really belonged to. I knew I was different, and I wanted to fit in somewhere.

When I was 29, I went to an infertility clinic because I wanted to find out if my body produced any sperm, since I had my doubts. (I remembered reading in a high school biology text that giants were usually sterile.) Although I treasured my difference, I wondered why I had small breasts, big nipples and a smooth feminine-looking physique, never having developed a musculature like other guys my age. After several tests, I was informed that I had XXY sex chromosomes, 10 percent of the standard testosterone production levels for an XY male and no sperm. I was offered breast reduction surgery and testicular implants but refused. I’ve since learned that this anatomical variation happens 1 in 500 “male” births, is called Klinefelter’s Syndrome, and exists within various creatures in the animal kingdom.

I was OK with the body I was born with but my endocrinologist apparently was not. He prescribed 300 mg of synthetic testosterone to be injected every two weeks for the rest of my life. He never told me what was going to happen, offered me no counsel, and told me to consult a medical journal for more information. I went through puberty again in my 30s. I only enjoyed the high sex drive induced by the treatments because I had never experienced being horny when I was a teenager. What wasn’t explained to me was that my body was going to masculinize. My once hairless body became covered with hair (much to my disgust) while I started losing my beautiful auburn hair to baldness. I became quite strong and trim. My voice dropped from a first tenor to a baritone. I also became HIV positive within the first five years of injecting testosterone. That is another story.

I had always felt caught between the sexes without knowing why. Emotionally and spiritually, I have always felt more feminine. During the first few years of testosterone replacement therapy, I felt that my female persona was dying. It was a time of overwhelming confusion, yet also a time of discovery. My sexual orientation hadn’t changed; I was still attracted to men. I didn’t understand why I had been chosen to have this experience, and I often wondered whether I should have stayed who I was. I knew that being “caught between” would be my life challenge and that would be OK since I felt whole with all my unique parts. I have since gotten back in touch with my female side, and I have realized that I never completely lost her. In the end, because I was so tall, I decided to find out what being male was like. I guess I’m still finding out.

For many years I was filled with shame and a sense of freakishness, and was told by my parents to keep my secret. I didn’t learn until 1995 that what I had was an intersex condition, that who I was originally was OK, and that I never had to take any hormones to change the way I looked. I like the term “intersex” because I prefer more choices than male or female. I think there is a continuum from male to female, like shades of grey between black and white. If only I had always known it was OK to be different and that I didn’t really need to fit into our binary system, I think I would have been a much happier person. I might have avoided some of the pain that I’ve had to endure to fit in. It’s been hard to feel like I belong to a community, any community.

When others look at me, they probably see a big, hairy, bearded, and very tall man. In many ways, I look and act like a typical San Francisco gay man. I guess most people see me like that and don’t think anymore about it. But I know that the truth is much more complicated. If you see a guy who looks “masculine,” just remember you can’t judge a book by its cover. And not all of us were created to populate the planet into extinction.

I was fortunate to meet a wonderful male partner who helped me through my transformation and has continued to love me just the way I am. We’ve been together for 28 years.

I want to be a part of a healthy and caring LGBTIQQ community where “difference” is seen as an attribute, not a detriment. We are all diverse. We belong to many different communities. We are not all the same. Many even in our community feel pressured by our binary-addicted culture. And many of us feel like we don’t fit in. I decided that telling the truth of my story and educating others about who I am is the only way to go. I think as gay men we are always trying to figure out what it means to be a man. And many of us are looking for a community to belong to. My journey is maybe just a little more unusual.

David Cameron was born in Canada, and grew up in Pleasant Hill, CA. He is a former international teacher, having taught in Thailand and Egypt. He met his partner, Peter Tannen, at a bisexual potluck in Sunnyvale. David had a home and garden renovation business prior to going out on AIDS disability and currently volunteers at the STOP AIDS Project. In addition, he serves as an appointed member of San Francisco’s Human Rights Commission’s LGBT Advisory Committee and is a Coordinating Committee member of the LGBTI Health Summit to be held in Philadelphia in March 2007.

Out and Proud!

2006-09-06T12:02:00.000-07:00

OII – USA is the United States affiliate of the Organisation Intersex International, a non-profit organisation incorporated in the Province of Quebec, Canada. We have members throughout the United States. OII – USA resists all efforts to make intersex invisible, including genital mutilation, medicalization and normalization without consent and offers another face to intersex lives and experience by highlighting the richness and diversity of intersex identities and culture.

We have members throughout the United States. Please feel free to contact them for more information about OII and its outreach programs:

Official Contacts:

CALIFORNIA David Cameron

DCameronXXY@aol.com

CALIFORNIA Arianna Davis

ariand2001@yahoo.com

GEORGIA Rara Starblanket

starclan@bellsouth.net

ILLINOIS Shauna Baggett

shaunabaggtt@sbcglobal.net

NEW JERSEY Prof. M. Italiano

profmital@yahoo.com

NEW YORK Jim Costich
middlesex1957@yahoo.com

NORTH CAROLINA Taylor Holder

taylorholder@hotmail.com

OREGON Bhakti Ananda Goswami

bhakti.eohn@verizon.net

SOUTH CAROLINA Curtis E. Hinkle

curtis.hinkle@gmail.com

TEXAS Reade Sitton

reade@ppri.tamu.edu

VIRGINIA Dalelynn Sims

dalelynnsims@hotmail.com

WASHINGTON Tom Odegard/Ms.G

tso@rockisland.com

OII-USA member, David Cameron, and his partner Peter featured in film

2006-09-04T07:54:00.000-07:00

"One in 2000" is a 26-minute piece that is being sent out to several festivals. The producer and artist of this film also hopes to distribute it either through the educational circuit or perhaps PBS or cable access stations. See below for festival showings in your area. If you have any suggestions as to other venues to send it, please inform Ajae, the producer, by writing directly to her at the following address:

aclearway@austin.rr.com

UPCOMING FESTIVALS:

TEXAS

Cinematexas September 20-24
www.cinematexas.org
Austin, TX
(check schedule for screening date)

AGLIFF Austin Gay Lesbian International Film Festival
September 29-October 8
Austin, TX
www.agliff.org
Part of "Black & White" program
"One in 2000" screening
2:40PM Oct 7
Regal Arbor Cinema

CALIFORNIA
Mill Valley Film Festival
October 5-15
www.mvff.com
(check schedule for screening date)

ARKANSAS
Hot Springs Documentary Film Festival
October 20-29
www.hsdfi.org
(check schedule for screening date)

INTERNATIONAL
NextFrame Film Festival
(UFVA) University Video Association's Touring Festival of
International Student Film & Video
"One in 2000" wins 1st Place in Documentary Program
www.temple.edu/nextframe/
(check schedule for screening dates and locations)

Full Human Rights for the Intersexed

2006-09-02T07:39:00.000-07:00

OII – USA Mission Statement on Human Rights

As a result of the arbitrary division of sex into only two legal categories, the intersexed are deprived of one of the most basic human rights, to live and be legally accepted for who they are – intersexed. Sex is not dimorphic and the two sexes, male and female, are not discrete biologically accurate categories. As a result we will never have a precise definition of what a man or a woman is because there will never be a way to establish a precise definition without intersex people being mutilated, normalized and forced into one or the other category. We therefore propose:

1) That no one who is intersexed should be arbitrarily imposed an assignment in either of these legal categories because it deprives us of basic human rights by sanctioning normalization and bigotry against our natural sex – intersex.

2) That either the government stop the sexist binary assignments altogether and allow all people the right to identify themselves socially as the sex they know they are or that intersex people be granted the same legal status that all other people with standard male or female anatomies have – intersex as our legal sex with the right of the individual intersex person to request this legal status which would allow them to marry whomever they wish, to have total legal protection against sex harassment that males and females currently are granted and to live openly and proudly as who we are with legal and medical acknowledgment of our sex. Since some intersex persons do identify as male or female, no coercion by the government should be used to force them to change their legal status from male or female which would also be a violation of their basic human right to self identify.

3) It is our hope that all society would benefit by openly acknowledging the presence of intersexed individuals, not just the intersexed. In so doing, many sexist stereotypes and other unnatural gender norms would be officially destabilized.

4) We openly affirm that we are proud to be who we are and demand an end to the silence, shame and forced normalization which is institutionalized against us and legal in our country.

Intersex House Candidate from Maryland

2006-09-02T07:37:00.000-07:00

Excerpt:
"Beyer was raised mostly in Queens, N.Y., the first of two children born to a Conservative Jewish family. She said she was born intersex, her gender identity confused by conflicting genitalia, a condition she ascribes to the drug DES, which was prescribed to her mother during pregnancy. Puberty plunged her body into hormonal civil war."

Hoping Md. Is 'Ready for a Person Like Me'
House Candidate Would Be State's 1st Transgender Lawmaker

To read the whole story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/01/AR2006090101461_pf.html

Three intersex activists defend children against pejorative terminology

2006-08-26T20:29:00.000-07:00

Three intersex activists who were included in the manual of the DSD guidelines have now made it clear that they do not agree with the new terminology. When they agreed to have their experiences and intersex histories included, they were not fully informed of the actual terminology nor all the implications of the publications of the Consortium for the Management of Disorders of Sex Development.

I wish to express my deep gratitude to David Cameron, Peter Trinkl and Esther Morris Leidolf for their courageous stand against this pejorative terminology. What they have done is very powerful and helps all of us in our struggle to live openly and without shame. They worked to help change the current health care of intersex children but have the courage to make their feelings known about this terminology which is consistent with their reason for agreeing to participate in the first place.

You can read the disclaimer which is now in the web version of the DSD guidelines.

Excerpt from the DSD Guidelines:

“We are grateful for the participation of David Cameron, Peter Trinkl, and Esther Morris Leidolf in this project. However, they would like to make it known that they do not support the term “Disorders of Sex Development.”

In solidarity,
Curtis E. Hinkle
Founder, OII

To read the excerpt in context:
http://www.dsdguidelines.org/htdocs/parents/acknowledgements.html

Cancer in Our Lives: Raising Awareness in the LGBTQI Community

2006-08-26T19:48:00.000-07:00

David Cameron, OII-USA Spokesperson for Human Rights is pleased to announce that Dr. Milton Diamond will be speaking at the GLMA Plenary panel on Cancers Affecting Lesbians, Bisexual Women, Trans Folks and Intersex Folks on Friday, October 13, 2006 at 1:00 – 2:30. This event is part of the 24th Annual Conference of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association to be held October 11-14, 2006.

Renaissance Parc 55 Hotel
San Francisco, CA
For more details:
http://cancerinlgbtqilives.googlepages.com/fridayagenda

On the 14th of October, Dr. Milton Diamond, Mani Bruce Mitchell, intersex activist from New Zealand, and David Cameron will be doing a workshop at the SF LGBT Community Center on "Intersex and the Threat of Cancer." They plan to show the film "XXXY", have a discussion about cancer and some Q&A during the 60 minute session.

LGBT Community Center
1800 Market St
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 865-5555

http://www.sfcenter.org/

The evening of the 14th, David and his partner Peter will be hosting an invitation only 10-year anniversary reunion & celebration of "Hermaphrodites Speak" at their home. More details to follow.

OII-USA Spokesperson for Human Rights

2006-08-26T19:43:00.000-07:00

David Cameron attended his first ISNA support group meeting in 1995 and within the year became ISNA’s first volunteer! He served as a board member from Dec. ’02 through Dec. ’05. As a person with XXY sex chromosomes, David has written about his experience in Hermaphrodites with Attitude, Chrysalis, and Alice Dreger’s book Intersex In the Age of Ethics. As an adult, David was hormonally masculinized by testosterone therapy without his “informed” consent.

He served as an appointed member to the San Francisco Human Rights Commission LGBT Advisory Committee and was a member of their Intersex Task Force. This Task Force was the first governmental organization in the U.S. to organize a public hearing on intersex treatments that involve gender assignments. After the historic hearing in May 2004, the Task Force developed the Intersex Report, with findings and recommendations, and was adopted by the Human Rights Commission in May 2005. David is further advocating for intersex people and taking our issues to the California legislature in hopes of enacting some of the recommendations of the report.

David lives in San Francisco with his domestic partner, Peter, whom he met in 1978. David is a long-term HIV/AIDS survivor and does volunteer work with the Stop Aids Project.