Editing Sex assignment (section)

=== History ===
In European societies, [[Roman law]], post-classical [[canon law]], and later [[common law]], referred to a person's sex as male, female, or [[hermaphrodite]], with legal rights as male or female depending on the characteristics that appeared most dominant. Under Roman law, a hermaphrodite had to be classed as either male or female.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1111/1468-0424.00075 |title=The Ideology of the Eunuch Priest |journal=Gender & History |volume=9 |issue=3 |pages=542–559 |year=1997 |last1=Roller |first1=Lynn E.|s2cid=143133728 }}</ref><!--footnote on page 558: "Note also the Roman treatment of a hermaphrodite, who could not be legally recognized as a third gender, but had to be classified as either male or female; see Yan Thomas, "The Division of the Sexes in Roman Law", in ''A History of Women: From Ancient Goddesses to Christian Saints'', ed. Pauline Schmidt Pantel (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA and London, 1992), pp. 84–7"--> The 12th-century ''[[Decretum Gratiani]]'' states that "Whether a hermaphrodite may witness a testament, depends on which sex prevails".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://geschichte.digitale-sammlungen.de/decretum-gratiani/kapitel/dc_chapter_1_1585 |title=Decretum Gratiani (Kirchenrechtssammlung) |work=Bayerische StaatsBibliothek ([[Bavarian State Library]]) |date=5 February 2009 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161220084841/http://geschichte.digitale-sammlungen.de/decretum-gratiani/kapitel/dc_chapter_1_1585 |archive-date=20 December 2016}}</ref><ref name="Raming">{{cite book |title=A History of Women and Ordination |last1=Raming |first1=Ida |last2=Macy |first2=Gary |last3=Bernard J |first3=Cook |publisher=[[Scarecrow Press]] |date=2004 |page=113}}</ref> The foundation of common law, the 16th Century ''[[Institutes of the Lawes of England]]'', described how a hermaphrodite could inherit "either as male or female, according to that kind of sexe which doth prevaile."<ref>E Coke, The First Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England, Institutes 8.a. (1st Am. Ed. 1812) (16th European ed. 1812).</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |volume=41 |last=Greenberg |first=Julie |title=Defining Male and Female: Intersexuality and the Collision Between Law and Biology |journal=Arizona Law Review |date=1999 |ssrn=896307 |pages=277–278}}</ref> Legal cases where sex assignment was placed in doubt [[Intersex in history|have been described]] over the centuries.

With the medicalization of intersex, criteria for assignment have evolved over the decades, as clinical understanding of biological factors and diagnostic tests have improved, as [[intersex surgery|surgical]] techniques have changed and potential complications have become clearer, and in response to the outcomes and opinions of adults who have grown up with various intersex conditions.

Before the 1950s, assignment was based almost entirely on the appearance of the external genitalia. Although physicians recognized that there were conditions in which the apparent secondary sexual characteristics could develop contrary to the person's sex, and conditions in which the gonadal sex did not match that of the external genitalia, their ability to understand and diagnose such conditions in infancy was too poor to attempt to predict future development in most cases.

In the 1950s, [[endocrinologist]]s developed a basic understanding of the major intersex conditions such as [[congenital adrenal hyperplasia]] (CAH), [[androgen insensitivity syndrome]], and [[mixed gonadal dysgenesis]]. The discovery of [[cortisone]] allowed survival of infants with severe CAH for the first time. New hormone tests and karyotypes allowed more confident diagnosis in infancy and prediction of future development.

Sex assignment became more than choosing a sex of rearing, but also began to include surgical treatment. Undescended testes could be retrieved. A greatly enlarged clitoris could be amputated to the usual size, but attempts to create a [[human penis|penis]] were unsuccessful. [[John Money]] and others [[John/Joan case|controversially]] believed that children were more likely to develop a gender identity that matched sex of rearing than might be determined by chromosomes, gonads, or hormones. The resulting medical model was termed the "Optimal gender model".<ref>{{Cite book |publisher=Community Affairs References Committee |isbn=978-1-74229-917-4 |last1=Australian Senate |author-link=Australian Senate |last2=Community Affairs References Committee |title=Involuntary or coerced sterilisation of intersex people in Australia |location=Canberra |date=October 2013 |url=http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Involuntary_Sterilisation/Sec_Report/index |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150923181927/http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Involuntary_Sterilisation/Sec_Report/index |archive-date=23 September 2015}}</ref>