🇳🇱
@Moonbuggy Where did you get that 99.98% figure, that is not even remotely accurate.
Any figure backed up by science (peer-reviewed facts) generally. If we use the definition of intersex the current numbers are 1.7% according to scientists who are born with some form of intersexuality. Thus would not be defined medically as female or male strictly speaking.
I personally prefer to deter people from asking others about their genitalia unless they are sexually intimate with the person. As such I usually prefer not to answer that particular question.
When we talk about sex we include in that definition your genes and hormonal expression. If a person has genes that disagree with what their genitals appear to be then they are by definition ambiguous in terms of sex.
Simply not identifying the ambiguity at birth does not imply the ambiguity is. not there.
I will speak to the science. I will 'splain whatever i damn well please to whoever i damn well please. I will do so with respect, and expect you to do the same (Which you did not do just now).
No one gets to silence another, period. You are welcome to share your opinions, I will be happy to consider it, and share my own.
You want to make a point, then make it with facts, not some claim to authority, not going to fly here sorry.
Now if you either do not wish to hear the opinions of others, or otherwise dont wish to have an interaction in the first place, then you can either change your privacy settings or ask nicely. In either of these cases I will mute you if you wish.But if you expect other people to listen to you then you accpet the consequence of needing to hear their response as well.
If she would have engaged respectfully I would have been more than happy to read any links and discuss the points. But it was clear she had no intention of doing so, so I wouldnt waste my energy on a one-way discussion.
The figure, as with any fact, is certainly up for discussion.
Agreed the 1.7% figure refers to all intersex people (people where the factors that determine ones medical sex do not all agree). For that context it is accurate.
However as you point out being visually identifiable as intersex at birth (specifically having ambiguous genitalia severe enough to be recognized on a new born) is a much smaller subset of the entire intersex community. This too would be a valid point.
Ultimately it depends on context which of these figures are relevant. But if we are talking generally about all intersex then the 1.7% figure makes the most sense.
To save you some time there isnt any**one** study that picks the 1.7% number. There are a lot, and a good deal of consensus and peer-review showing that number is at **least** 1.7%.
To save you some time I linked below a meta-study (meta studies are peer-reviewed and are themselves collections of many/most of the studies on the subject and aim to find consensus).
The study passed peer review and cited a figure between 1.7% - 4% as the consensus among scientists (which means they also agree on the definition). It also suggests this number is conservative. Here are some quotes from the linked paper:
Research has generally estimated that 1.7% to 4% of people go on to actually have intersex variations (Carroll, 2005; Fausto-Sterling, 1993; OII Australia, 2012b)
Given that many elements of sex (chromosomes, genes, hormones) are not apparent without testing, current estimates of the incidence and types of intersex variations seen in humans may be conservative.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244017745577
