Chongara wrote:
Intersexed individuals are almost always assigned one way or another by various methods and sometimes they can feel like that assignment went wrong and are also Transexual in that case. However, two categories aren't really strictly related or reliant on each other.

 Ouze wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
Intersexed individuals are almost always assigned one way or another by various methods and sometimes they can feel like that assignment went wrong and are also Transexual in that case. However, two categories aren't really strictly related or reliant on each other.

It seems like the best practice might be to defer (physical) assignment until the child gets old enough to start indicating how they feel.

 Bullockist wrote:
my thought was couldn't they just be considered trans? Since it's essentially the same thing. Person born in body, body doesn't match head (essentially) , things happen. You are never going to notice a intersex whose sex matches it's gender, therefore aren't all inters by nature (with a broad brush) trans?

 Bullockist wrote:
my thought was couldn't they just be considered trans? Since it's essentially the same thing. Person born in body, body doesn't match head (essentially) , things happen. You are never going to notice a intersex whose sex matches it's gender, therefore aren't all inters by nature (with a broad brush) trans?

 Ouze wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
Intersexed individuals are almost always assigned one way or another by various methods and sometimes they can feel like that assignment went wrong and are also Transexual in that case. However, two categories aren't really strictly related or reliant on each other.

It seems like the best practice might be to defer (physical) assignment until the child gets old enough to start indicating how they feel.

 Chongara wrote:
My understanding is that goes "Right" more often than it goes "Wrong", and sex is one of the primary identifiers people have in their lives even as children.

The choice is basically to leave them without a practically workable sex-identity during much of the formative years, or risk getting wrong and have that come up later. Both these options present some risk of harm but my understanding is on balance, giving them something that the rest of the world can deal with early on has a greater chance of causing less harm.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
My understanding is that goes "Right" more often than it goes "Wrong", and sex is one of the primary identifiers people have in their lives even as children.

The choice is basically to leave them without a practically workable sex-identity during much of the formative years, or risk getting wrong and have that come up later. Both these options present some risk of harm but my understanding is on balance, giving them something that the rest of the world can deal with early on has a greater chance of causing less harm.

As I understand it there's also the issue of parents/doctors who aren't comfortable with anything outside of their nice neat little gender boxes deciding to "fix" the problem in the way that makes life as easy as possible for them, regardless of what is best for the child. And really, what other reason would there be? It's not like many people are going to be paying attention to what's in a child's pants, just leave all of that alone until they're older and can make their own choices. You can still raise them as a boy/girl until that point, it's just easier to change that choice if you're wrong.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I can impossibly take anyone even borderline seriously who suggests not defining gender at birth. It's a purely emotional point of view, that is based on a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny minority and suddenly becomes a superserial issue for some people. This isn't even close to how anything works.