Talk:intersex

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

adjective usage[edit]

TK archive icon.svg

The following discussion has been moved from the page User talk:Nicoletapedia.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.


adjectival usage
  • The reason I reverted you (and will shortly do so again) is because what you added is just too full of mistakes. I have no quarrel with intersex being used as an adjective, but first of all you need to define it. The definition you put of intersex was ‘pertaining to intersex’. Can you see the problem there? Secondly, you need to find some better citations which clearly show adjectival use; at the moment the Guardian quote reads much more like an attributive use of the noun. Can an organism be, for instance, ‘more intersex’ than another? I don't know, but that's the kind of citation you need. And finally, you changed the noun definition in a way which is unsupported by the citations. It read ‘an individual...’ and you made this ‘a condition...’. But the citation describes an egg ‘developing not into a male but into an intersex’, which now makes no sense at all; the egg has developed into a type of individual organism and not into a ‘condition’. If you think the noun can be used to describe the condition as well, then you need to add a SECOND sense to that effect and support it with relevant citations. Until then the old version is better. Ƿidsiþ 09:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I fixed it up with the clarifications and provided examples as well. Nicoleta 09:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, but you just made up your own examples, which with the best will in the world proves nothing. You need to add referenced citations. I've done it myself now, have a look....although it's still not very clear that it's a true adjective. Ƿidsiþ 10:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
    • You wouldn't introduce your friend Jill as being "an intersex." That's not very polite, the preferred terminology is to say "Jill is intersex" or "Jill is an intersex(ed) person." "Intersex" in the nominal usage is rare (or at least dehumanizing) for describing people. I'm not a biologist, so it may be different for describing other organisms. We do need the adjectival sense though. Nicoleta 10:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, I tagged it biology, zoology to show it's not usually used in normal speech. Ƿidsiþ 10:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The second sense is the most common one, I'm going to flip them and move this conversation to Talk:intersex. Nicoleta 10:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


RFV[edit]

TK archive icon.svg

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.


At first look I see no evidence that this is used as a true adjective rather than attributive use of the noun. I searched for "too|very intersex" and "more intersex than" at Google Books, News, Scholar, Groups. See Wiktionary:English adjectives. DCDuring TALK 13:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I've split this into two senses, one describing people and one of the "of or pertaining to" sort. I think the former is an adjective, and I've cited the former by adding three predicative cites from Google Books that I think demonstrate as much. The latter is ambiguous, since it's a non-predicating modifier (like presidential in "presidential candidate"; "presidential candidate" does not mean "candidate who is presidential", or at least, not usually). Nouns and adjectives can both be used as non-predicating modifiers; it's certainly more characteristic of nouns than of adjectives, but if we've already got the adjective section, I don't see a problem with keeping that use there. —RuakhTALK 15:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I should have mentioned that my reading of the usage suggested that this term has "wanted" to be an adjective lately (~10 years) and was likely to become one. One can find "too|very intersex" and "more intersex than" on the Web, but not from our preferred sources. The cites look sufficient to me. DCDuring TALK 16:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems misleading to me to characterize the other sense as a true adjective without evidence. It would be somewhat surprising that a noun sense that is mostly technical in its usage would be used as a true adjective. DCDuring TALK 16:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Re: "It would be somewhat surprising that a noun sense that is mostly technical in its usage would be used as a true adjective": Right, but it's perfectly normal that an adjective that is not mostly technical would be used in extended senses. Transgender people form transgender groups, intersex people form intersex groups. (Actually, maybe the problem here is that even the split off sense "of or relating to intersex" needs to be split into two: "of or relating to intersex people" seems to be a non-predicating use of the adjective, whereas "of or relating to the condition of intersex" seems to be attributive use of the noun. The two blur into each other, of course, but the latter is technical/medical/clinical whereas the latter is not. And perhaps the (of an individual) sense needs to be (of a person) instead, since use to describe non-human animals is a technical use, and not likely to have become an adjective.) —RuakhTALK 16:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
We will get this right with a little more tweaking along the lines you mention or, perhaps, a generalized first sense, perhaps confined to persons. (Though I understand that anecdotes about non-human individual are used not-so-technically in polemics.) DCDuring TALK 18:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I have added two quotations to Citations:intersex; I am not certain which adjective sense they use. - -sche (discuss) 08:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the sense "of or relating to intersex"; all of the other senses pass. - -sche (discuss) 23:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)