Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Type:||Artigo de periódico|
|Title:||New Definitions And Classifications Of The Intersexual States: In Which The Chicago Consensus Has Contributed To The State Of The Art? [as Novas Definições E Classificações Dos Estados Intersexuais: O Que O Consenso De Chicago Contribui Para O Estado Da Arte?]|
Guerra Jr. G.
|Abstract:||Disorders of sex development have posed a tremendous challenge not only in the diagnosis but also in the treatment, placing the patient, the family members, and the health team in the difficult task of attributing the best sex of rearing for that specific patient. A confusing and stigmatizing nomenclature has been employed and the Chicago Consensus tried to minimize the discomfort with modifications of the current terminology. The authors perform a critical analysis of the Consensus, raising the question that the new terminology does not solve the problems and persist being stigmatizing to the patient and to the family. First of all, the inclusion of the karyotype in the name of the disease holds the false premise that the patients do not know the meaning of a 46,XY or a 46,XX karyotype. A child raised in the female sex will not understand that her disease holds a "male" karyotype in its name (46,XY DSD). The substitution of ovotesticular DSD for true hermaphroditism maintains the stigma of the name since ovotesticular is easily perceived as ovarian and testicular tissues. If, on one hand, the recognition of using terms like intersex and hermaphroditism are stigmatizing, on the other hand, we need terms that are really neutral to not create problems of sexual identification. One point in which there is consensus is that the change of the term "intersex" for "disorder of sex development" is highly desirable and eliminates the idea of an "intermediate sex".|
|Appears in Collections:||Unicamp - Artigos e Outros Documentos|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.