Intersex Studies: A Systematic Review of International Health Literature
Open accessAbstract
There is a need to better understand contemporary issues of nomenclature and group construction around people with intersex variations shaping health research and practices—including their framing within concepts like disorders of sex development (DSD), intersex, or the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) umbrella. This article reviews health literature in the broad field of Intersex Studies since 2015. It outlines the contexts, theoretical lenses, methods and participant numbers, framing of participants, and health findings around interventions evident in 61 sources. Sources came from the African region, American Canadian region, Asia-Pacific region, European region, and the Middle East. While health-related work was largely found in medical journals, it was also located in publications focused on a range of other fields including, for example, bioethics, education, and legal studies. The piece discusses the tensions between institutional expert-centered work with a traditional clinical/medical lens and the arguments found in a range of other patient-centered, community group–centered, and theory-centered sources applying innovative perspectives onto key issues. Liberal Constructivist, Bioethical Narrative Inquiry, Critical Intersex Studies, and Critical LGBTI Liberationist lenses have introduced a range of methods (from autobiographical analyses through to large-scale online surveys) to questions of the need for and processes of certain health care interventions and norms in the treatment of patients with intersex variations. Problematic practices in clinical health care and research are identified and discussed: particularly the lack of adequate information dissemination and consent-gleaning in areas ranging from anatomical photography through to application of “corrective” genital surgeries.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There is a scarcity of studies dedicated to intersex, transgender and nonbinary individuals, leaving open questions regarding health differences across the gender spectrum.
“there are still open questions regarding health differences across the gender spectrum, reflected by the scarcity of studies dedicated to intersex, transgender and nonbinary individuals12,13.”
From Sex and gender differences and biases in artificial intelligence for biomedicine and healthcare (2020) · cites this paper as [12]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 64 · Cited by 93
- Authors
- Jones, T.
- Affiliations
- Macquarie University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Jones, Tiffany
- ORCID
- Jones, Tiffany
- Venue
- Sage Open
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-04
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 2158-2440 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2806864282
- Cited by
- 93
- References
- 64
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 0.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2026-02-02)
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- SAGE Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Australian Research Council (DECRA Fellowship)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Sexual Differentiation and Disorders
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Gender, Health, and Social Inequality
- Keywords
- intersex variations, disorders of sex development, patient-centered care, informed consent, anatomical photography, health interventions
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review