I always hesitate to jump in on threads like these since they too often become contentious which they shouldn’t be and divide more than unify. And I don’t mean to be either contentious or biased one way or the other. But here is my 2 cents. (And I apologize in advance)
I spent years trying to justify who I am and what I am and as a doc, often resorted to medical journal articles, scholarly papers and various treatises to try to explain myself. When I looked at my world from a medical standpoint I had to realize a few things.
1. Nomenclature is often confusing. We can’t confuse intersex syndromes being synonymous with gender dysphoria. Intersex simply means that the anatomical appearance (phenotype) does not specifically match the DNA (genotype) aspects. Intersex as a term includes a wide array of things such as hypospadius (where the urethra doesn’t end at the tip of the penis) or cryptorchidism (undescended testicles) which are not uncommon but not particularly aligned with gender dysphoria. Of course these are only a couple of a long slew of conditions, but quite common which would raise the statistical incidence. In fact it was stated that in the vast majority of intersex individuals they remain heterosexual and align themselves mentally with their DNA pattern. That does not mean that someone with an intersex diagnosis at birth can’t have a gender dysphoria but that is not usually the case.
2. You have to be careful in what you read. Because something is published does not make it correct. Many groups, associations, companies, etc., tend to slant the findings to support their particular viewpoint. They are trying to sell a point. Therefore, the best sources of knowledge come from peer reviewed, “refereed” journals reviewed prior to publication by a number of outside non-biased experts. And only when it passes that scrutiny, does the work get published.
3. Statistics lie. Not often intentionally but for statistics to be valid, the parameters of the study producing the stats need to be consistent with the test population. Simply stated, for the statistics of any article to be applied to anything, the variables of the study must be the same as the variables of what one is discussing. So pulling statistics out of the sky can sometimes be misleading.
4. It is even difficult for medical professionals to sometimes recognize points 2 and 3 and for the sake of a forum, I’m not sure how many who don’t have that experience even consider this.
But with all that said. Who cares unless we actually are looking to pick an argument. Sometimes both sides of an argument look at their side as totally right and the other side wrong and where does that get us. NOWHERE but arguing about who is what, and what your limitations are. Wheels spinning in the mud. With all the medical research I’ve done and the articles I’ve read about all this, I’ve come to recognize, understand and appreciate myself because of who I am, what I like and how I feel, not by trying to apply some medical justification of who I am. I tried that and I admit that’s the way I started and, don’t get me wrong, I do feel it did help me along this road and gave me some objective data to lean back on. But coming from someone who has a strong scientific process behind their 45 years of medical practice, it all boiled down in the end to me saying that I am the way I am because that is the way I am. Ocam’s Razor says when there are multiple different possibilities, the simplest is usually the best. How much simpler can it be to just accept myself without having to justify or explain or rely on my medical background to make me feel better. Or whether my DNA matches how I feel, or if my plumbing is a little off, or if my adrenal starts doing some weird things, or if for some reason, androgens fall off the face of the earth or androgenic receptors get screwed up. Does it make a difference? I don’t think so.
Sorry for the lecture. It becomes natural.
Whew. Sorry for the length.
Peace to all
Dr. J.