(OIIa). OII thus advocates a shift from umbrella terms that group so-called ‘intersex conditions’ together and favors a focus on the particular health needs specific to each condition. OII thus perceived a shift to ‘DSD’ as a direct attack on their goal of focusing on specific health needs instead of gender.
Frame Resonance Disputes
Frame resonance disputes relate to two areas. The first area is that of the empiricism, or credibility, of the statements made and actions undertaken by the SMOs. The second has to do with resonance, or how the frames are constructed in relation to their target audience.
Debates over Empiricism/Credibility ISNA/Accord has attempted to enhance its credibility through framing the adoption of ‘DSD’ as a success in relation to both medical practitioners and parents. ISNA/Accord states that the “new nomenclature is rapidly entering medical usage” (ISNA 2008; 16). Regarding parents, it is claimed that, “The DSD terminology is working for the families who are its intended beneficiaries” (ISNA 2008; 47), and it is stated that, “not one parent objected to ‘DSD’” (ISNA 2008; 69). AISSGUK asserts its own credibility and challenges that of the Chicago Conference, stating, “AISSGUK was the first peer group to be formed to give support, information and fellowship to individuals and families with AIS and other XY-female conditions” (AISSG 2006). It continues, “it is therefore surprising that we were not consulted about the new DSD-based terminology at any stage in its evolution or officially notified about the Chicago Consensus meeting” (AISSG 2006). An excerpt from the group’s website charges that, “Patient support/advocacy groups outside the USA were not consulted and had no input” (AISSG 2008c). These statements are meant to undermine the credibility of the ‘Consensus Statement’ by arguing that the consensus arrived at did not include the voices of AISSGUK and others. AISSGUK also challenged ISNA/Accord’s credibility