↓ Skip to main content

The “Normalization” of Intersex Bodies and “Othering” of Intersex Identities in Australia

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 674)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
103 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
79 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The “Normalization” of Intersex Bodies and “Othering” of Intersex Identities in Australia
Published in
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, May 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11673-018-9855-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Morgan Carpenter

Abstract

Once described as hermaphrodites and later as intersex people, individuals born with intersex variations are routinely subject to so-called "normalizing" medical interventions, often in childhood. Opposition to such practices has been met by attempts to discredit critics and reasserted clinical authority over the bodies of women and men with "disorders of sex development." However, claims of clinical consensus have been selectively constructed and applied and lack evidence. Limited transparency and lack of access to justice have helped to perpetuate forced interventions. At the same time, associated with the diffusion of distinct concepts of sex and gender, intersex has been constructed as a third legal sex classification, accompanied by pious hopes and unwarranted expectations of consequences. The existence of intersex has also been instrumentalized for the benefit of other, intersecting, populations. The creation of gender categories associated with intersex bodies has created profound risks: a paradoxically narrowed and normative gender binary, maintenance of medical authority over the bodies of "disordered" females and males, and claims that transgressions of social roles ascribed to a third gender are deceptive. Claims that medicalization saves intersex people from "othering," or that legal othering saves intersex people from medicalization, are contradictory and empty rhetoric. In practice, intersex bodies remain "normalized" or eliminated by medicine, while society and the law "others" intersex identities. That is, medicine constructs intersex bodies as either female or male, while law and society construct intersex identities as neither female nor male. Australian attempts at reforms to recognize the rights of intersex people have either failed to adequately comprehend the population affected or lacked implementation. An emerging human rights consensus demands an end to social prejudice, stigma, and forced medical interventions, focusing on the right to bodily integrity and principles of self-determination.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 103 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 18%
Student > Bachelor 16 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Student > Postgraduate 4 4%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 30 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 16 17%
Psychology 11 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Philosophy 5 5%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 30 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 121. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 February 2024.
All research outputs
#353,611
of 25,805,386 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#8
of 674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,817
of 342,758 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,805,386 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 674 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,758 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them