Well, I did call it an estimate. Because from what I understand it depends on how you define “intersex”. The source you are citing excludes a number of conditions that the earlier estimation did include. So your assertion that the 1.7% figure is “incorrect” is not factual as it apparently depends on the definitions and is a subject of debate among professionals. The 1.7% figure is often cited in biological and advocacy literature when many intersex variations are included. The truth is that we just don’t really know, because in most countries it is not required to track intersex births. However, my point was that it’s not really weird or strange. Even with the lower estimate of 0.018% we’re still talking about 1.5 million people here. This is comparable to how common identical twins (about 0.3 to 0.5%), albinism (about 0.01 to 0.05%) or dwarfism (about 0.02 to 0.04%) are; and we wouldn’t really call these “weird” or “strange”, but just part of the human species.That is, however, incorrect. According to this paper the true prevalence is around 0.018%.
