Comments by "D. R. Stewart" (@drstewart) on "What Is Life Like Being Intersex? | DEEP" video.

Intersex - 1.7% Red-haired people - 2-6% Not quite the same.
64
@JohnnyHobbs-of3ly It may considerably lower than 1.7% actually, as that estimate "includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%" (Sax 2002). In any case, equating the intersex population with the number of people with red hair is a fallacy. It's a misrepresentation for the sake of a certain narrative.
48
@alphamail8974 So... 1.7 (not really) vs as high as 6. In a context of 8.1 billion population that's a delta of more than 300 million. Not a trivial number. Ignoring the facts as usual.
19
@edenschannel101 Correct, it may be much lower as previously explained. In any case, it's not on par with the number of red haired people.
12
@notorioustori Not sure why your nagging was necessary as well, but let's explore. As stated in a previous comment the delta in question, in a world population of 8.1 billion, equates to approximately 300,000,000. That is a non-trivial population. Nothing like some spurious claims to bolster your argument as well, so let's examine those. "1% to 6% with a (-/+) deviation especially with higher numbers - because if the number could be lower, than logically it can be higher." So because it can be lower, it can be higher. That's what you stated. So why stop at 6%? Maybe the number is 10%? Maybe 50% of the world is so-called intersex. Maybe you're actually intersex and don't know it! No, the number must be based on something, sorry. We don't get to inflate the numbers for the sake of narrative, and that's what's being done here. "considering there are highly religious clans, tribes, and nations that don't consider intersexed as "natural"" Where and what are these groups apart from your own imagination? Your justification is based on a fantasy. "sounds pretty close to "around the same"" An estimate/approximation of an estimate/approximation. Back to the idea that the number can be whatever we want it to be, right? No. The OP is playing fast and loose with the numbers for the sake of presenting something as common that isn't common. It's embracing a social narrative despite what actual numbers are saying. We don't get to inflate numbers for the sake of our social narrative. No, intersex conditions are not as common as red haired people and depending on definition, are actually a couple orders of magnitude less. That is non-trivial. That is why my comment was necessary, for your information. Fuzzy, imprecise numbers may make you feel like a social justice hero "punching up" but in a clinical, scientific discussion, they have no place.
8
@notorioustori Far too many words to say that facts hurt your feelings. That. Is unnecessary.
4
It's wild that there are so many replies fighting you on this as if appearance doesn't play a huge part in social acceptance and therefore, perception of self.
4
@notorioustori No, previous comments were blocked and that wasn't known until yesterday. In any case, stay mad and delusional. 🙄
2
@notorioustori All that vitriol because you're mad that a social narrative is exposed. Sounds like a you problem. More misrepresentation and fudging of facts still isn't going to get it oh angry one. The person didn't say there are more intersexed people around us than we think. That is what's called a projection. The person said that there are "around" the same number of intersex people as red haired people. That is provably incorrect. If the facts anger you so, I really don't know what to tell you about that. The internetisms are a cute touch though 😎, trying to frame me as pedantic for pointing out something portrayed as true to be false. Maybe you want to call me an incel next, or misogynistic, or perhaps some other -ism? That's the next move of the ego fractured victim on the internet. The OP lied. I explained how and why. That. Is why your original nagging was unnecessary, and your angry little missive is as well. Truth and lies don't ride in the same bus for those with even a little integrity. Thanks for showing where you ride though.
1
@pumpkinwarrior7138 Research indicates that Klinefelter's is not considered intersex because "it's not associated with ambiguous genitalia or confusion about sexual identity."
1