DSD / Intersex labeling - Discussion

[Wyn]

I've seen where this topic has been discussed to a significant degree. Unfortunately, these items are in several different places, and I am in a quandry as to the best 'location' to place this post. As such, I am starting a new thread so as to possibly keep these discussions both germane, and centrally located, and in so doing, become readily accessable to those interested in them.
------------------
Well, it’s now about 3:30am – I should be asleep, but, quite honestly, I don’t sleep all that well anymore. I’ve been laying in bed, thinking about this whole intersex/dsd labeling issue, and I feel I’ve come to some disturbing conclusions, possibly incorrect. Putting these thoughts out for perusal and discussion is probably the best way to dissect them and put them into context.

I may be wrong, but I’ve come to the unfortunate conclusion that this ‘DSD’ moniker is simply a way for the medical community to insure that intersex/dsd conditions are Kept as a ‘disorder’ – a pathology – such that continued genital mutilation of infants with these conditions may be covered by insurance providers, and thus be maintained as a ‘profit center’ for those involved in these surgeries (Infant Genital Mutilations - IGM). To remove this ‘disorder’ label would provide a convenient and ready excuse for insurance providers to NOT cover these surgeries, thus reducing/eliminating the profits of a number of pediatric urologists, anesthetheologists, and the like. I’ve been in the business world long enough to grasp the significance of these actions and the subtleties that ensue. I recognize that So many doctors are under a terrific squeeze play by these insurance underwriters to keep their costs down, and thus are contrary to these doctors attempting to keep their profits up.

I am now becoming convinced that the ONLY WAY to Eliminate these gross violations of an infant’s bodily sovereignty, is to remove their justification. And the best way to accomplish this is to reduce or eliminate their financial support by these same insurance providers. I do feel the most effective way to do this is to remove the ‘disorder’ label – the pathological identity - of these birth conditions.

However, this is a two-edged sword. There are some situations where these surgeries may need to be done – I do recognize that there are many who accept and are glad for their surgery. This is an area that will need MUCH discussion, and, as in many medically inspired circumstances, the competing benefits vs ‘costs’ (and Not always financial costs) will need a thorough and complete analysis, not possible in this short letter.

In this context, I do feel that the move to further delineate and define the parameters by which legitimate ‘Informed Consent’ can be given, will play an important and integral part of the actions necessary to remove or reduce the instances of IGM here in the US.

So, it should come as no surprise that the actions by which we in the IS community can influence this debate will be many-faceted, just as the forces that cause these invasions are multiple and varied. Participation en-mass will be a prerequisite to any just and viable solution to an intractable and varied assault upon infants born with VSD – Variations of Sexual Development. It is my heartfelt conclusion that this label is both non-stigmatizing, and yet still recognizes that these conditions are unique, and thus warrant Limited medical intervention at an appropriate time, relative to the overall benefit of the person born with said conditions.