Three different types of internal frame disputes have been identified by Benford (1993): diagnostic frame disputes, prognostic frame disputes, and frame resonance disputes. According to Benford, diagnostic disputes “pertain to problem identification or to attribution of blame or causality” (Benford 1993; 686). Prognostic disputes “concern
differences over alternative visions of reality including extant reality” (Benford 1993; 689). Frame resonance should be presented so as to maximize mobilization”
what is to be done to change
disputes concern, “how (Benford 1993; 691).
questions are essential to analyzing frame persons to participate in the movement’s the framing resonate with the audience’s
resonance disputes: “Will the framing persuade activities and campaigns? Is it credible? Will experiences and orientations?” (Benford 1993;
691). The three types of framing disputes will presentation of how the three intersex SMOs have other in relation to the code in question, ‘DSD’.
This study is not concerned with testing hypotheses but focused on an examination of how intersex SMOs are engaging in framing disputes and discerning what each SMO’s position is within these disputes in relation to their engagement with the discourse. Frame disputes regarding the code ‘DSD’ will be analyzed in the sub-categories of diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational frame disputes. Eckert (2003) and Preves (2005) demonstrated that the internet provided individuals with the ability to coalesce around an intersex identity and exchange information anonymously, which helped to initially
effects of shame also facilitated
and contributed to collective action
development of intersex allowing individuals to
overcome geographical, electronically. The texts
physical chosen for
distances to share and exchange information the analysis are therefore all taken from the SMOs’