I feel like I am a lone voice in regards to this terminology discussion.

We must remember that it is only because of the luxury of treatment for CAH that most of us survive. Furthermore it is only because of treatment that CAH people, who may previously have survived infancy yet subsequently become extremely and progressively virilised, are now not "between sexes". When I use this term I am not confining my definition only to the appearance of the genitalia, but rather to the whole person.

The whole visible appearance of CAH women before the 1950’s (and still in some parts of the world) often became impossible to differentiate from a male. Starting with surgically uncorrected clitoral enlargement and labial fusion of varying degrees, their muscular habitus,  their facial hair/beard, body hair, their deep voice and Adams apple, absence of breasts,  etc. to all intents and purposes caused many of these surviving women to appear male. Often they lived as males and were married to women - in the traditional sense. 

These core manifestations still exists with CAH - they have not gone away and if any one of us went off our medications for some time, providing we survived, we would develop these tendencies to varying degrees.

So I think the term intersex has certainly been an accurate one in that context - if we must have a label. The question remains whether it is time to move on with our terminology now that treatment has diminished these extreme manifestations in most instances (except for many CAH people of the developing world who  still have inadequate treatment to the point where they may need to transgender as a result of their progressive virilisation).