26 Feb 2026, 11am to 1pm AEDT

Integrating psychosocial evidence to enhance modern healthcare for innate variations of sex characteristics (IVSC) / differences of sex development (DSD): a look-ahead workshop.

​

​

A special event with clinical psychologist Lih-Mei Liao 

This event is co-presented by Sydney Health Ethics, InterAction for Health and Human Rights, and PSI-I, with the option to attend via Zoom or in-person at the University of Sydney's main campus. The event is part of the Sydney Health Ethics Conversations series.

Lih-Mei is one of the world's top experts on psychosocial issues and mental health of people with innate variations of sex characteristics (also termed intersex variations or differences of sex development). The event will also feature responses from Velissa Aplin and Bonnie Hart, and be chaired by Associate Professor Morgan Carpenter.

Abstract: Medical specialists, who adopt the terminology DSD, have described their struggles to psychosocial researchers. They speak of not having a crystal ball to visualise the future adult in order to know how best to manage the child, of ordering stacks of tests that turn out results too complex to convey to parents, of feeling dismayed when parents don't talk to the growing child about their variation, and of being criticised for shoehorning patients into interventions to approximate social norms when they already take a conservative approach. In a sea of nebulous problems that no amount of training can prepare them for, many specialists disengage psychologically and look to techno medicine on the horizon to reduce uncertainties and improve outcome. But this could turn out to be a doomed fantasy, how so?

The main threat from IVSC is not that of a major illness, therefore technology itself won’t cut it. IVSC triggers crises of meaning and threatens selfhood, relationships and belonging. It requires a different response. Psychosocial providers understand unwanted experiences as intrinsic to being human and that with love, support and community, human concerns are generally laudable. They do not minimise the burden of normative pressures or oppose bodily interventions to treat unhappiness. However, experiences suggest that the more complex the medical intervention, the greater the need for detailed and nuanced psychosocial input. Practice experiences in this field suggest that elective irrevocable interventions involve complex trade-offs. Therefore they are best considered after meaningful psychological engagement, when people are less afraid, more agentic and, therefore, better placed to make dilemmatic, life changing decisions.

These parallel realities are well described in psychosocial research, scholarly analyses and clinical conversations. Yet they rarely feature in service designs. This means care users are left to navigate the disciplinary silos for themselves. Just imagine, if stakeholders were to learn together from psychosocial evidence and commit to providing seamless care experiences underpinned by a strong team spirit, what changes to existing services might ensue, what are the potential paths to achieve the changes, what new connections and alliances might be forged?​