disc-hoarse:

terflies:

• I mentioned bird W/Z chromosomes because they’re a ready example of gametes besides X and Y that exist in nature.
  
• Intersex isn’t a disability or disorder—it’s a broad category that includes many conditions that are defined as disabilities or disorders (or not) by people who aren’t me. (Likewise, no one should ignore associated health problems.) The point I did make is that what constitutes a disorder is a human definition, not an absolute in nature.
• Without getting too technical every human trait—even sexual reproduction at all—is the result of genetic mutation.
• There is no such thing as “deliberate” natural development.

Please note, anyone who might think to respond to this, that @terflies didn’t at any point say that no intersex condition is ever a disability or a disorder.  Yes, by medical definition some are definitely disorders, but given one of her points was specifically that “disorder” is a constructed term, that doesn’t prove anything.

Incidentally, the (apparently recent) use of “dyadic” to mean “non-intersex person” is something of a problem, because that word already meant something.  It’s not like “cisgender” or “heterosexual” or even “allosexual” (and no, I’m not necessarily endorsing the use of that one), because those words were constructed intentionally to mean the things they mean.  “Dyadic” already existed, and meant “of or relating to a dyad”, a dyad being a group of two things.  Quite apart from being an adjective, and already having a corresponding noun (”dyad”), it refers specifically to the compound entity of the two things or to the relationship between them, not to things-that-fit-neatly-into-a-binary.  There’s already a word for that: binary.  But that’s by the way.  Language evolves, and all that - but if we’re going to develop it intentionally, it would seem to be a good idea not to do so in massively misleading ways.

Furthermore, as implied by the third bullet point above: being a mutation (which not all intersex conditions are! Some are epigenetic in origin, and some are aneuploidies, which aren’t technically mutations, and there are probably others still which aren’t mutations or either of those things) is not sufficient to make something a disorder or a disability, and it certainly doesn’t make it unnatural.

It is certainly ableist, not to mention the other ways it’s unacceptable, to ignore the medical concerns associated with various intersex conditions.  It is also ableist and otherwise gross to suggest, as anon does, that these conditions consist entirely of medical problems, or indeed of problems at all.  They don’t.