Good grief. Now they’re saying that not all xx are female and not all xy are male. And that xy ‘generally' means male.

However I have encountered some arguments from GC feminists recently wherein clearly, they do feel that complexity of biological sex in a tiny number of individuals with rare DSDs does somehow threaten a binary model of understanding human sex - so they have to deny the existence of that complexity. And sometimes to the extent that they are making remarks which further stigmatise DSD. Eg I think saying somebody with CAIS is a "man" with the implication they should live with a male identity due to a Y chromosome they are basically biologically incapable of making any use of other than producing non-functioning male internal organs (that might give them cancer) is just insensitive, stigmatising, mean and completely unnecessary and of no benefit to anyone. And it's clear (to me) that this position is adopted for ideological reasons related to the trans debate.

I feel that not only does that kind of thing make GC feminism look bad and actually gives credence to the idea that GC feminism is at odds (as opposed to in keeping with) biological reality, but is also really unfair to people with DSDs.

@Zita60

I find that I don't disagree with you at all, I'm in complete agreement.

I agree that sex is binary in humans. I don't think the subtext (*that have developed normally) needs to be spelled out. But as you have intimated, even if I did disagree it would only be a matter of semantics and would have no bearing on the argument that sex is a spectrum in human beings - plainly it isn't.

I want to add for the purpose of not being misleading that there is no documented case ever (at least to my knowledge) of a human being that produces both ova and sperm.

That's my understanding too.That would be true hermaphroditism, which doesn't exist in humans.

Again can't emphasise enough though, this is not an argument for TRA and this is not an argument that people with male advantage of any kind should be able to compete in female sport. But I think we actually give credence to those ideas when we argue that complexity doesn't exist at all when it comes to biological sex - it makes it seems as though biological reality is at odds with a GC position such that GC can't admit to biological reality. There is nothing about acknowledging the complexity of exceptionally rare DSDs that is at odds with a GC position or at odds with wanting those who have male advantages to be excluded from female competitive sport.

I agree that this isn't an argument for TRA, and it doesn't mean people with male sex advantage should be allowed into female sport. And I agree about acknowledging the complexities in the way gametes are produced (or not produced).

But I think the point about the statement that sex is binary is that it means that there are only two types of gametes, and in sexual reproduction they come together to form a new organism.

I don't think the fact that there are some rare variations in which gametes a person can potentially produce, relative to their sex chromosomes, negates the statement that sex is binary. It certainly doesn't allow TRAs to claim that sex is a spectrum.

"even daffodils are male or female" with the obvious implication that plants have binary sex categories

I think they do though. There are still only two types of gametes that must fuse to create a new plant. In some species, both types of gametes are produced in the same plant. In others, each plant makes just one type of gamete. So sex is still binary in plants.

I think perhaps we're just disagreeing about exactly what is meant by the statement that "sex is binary"?

Even if no gametes are actually produced, it’s which reproductive system is present that is key. A woman who is infertile is still female.

Fair point about OT-DSD. But even in this condition, we say there are gonadal tissues of both sexes present. Two sexes, binary.

I think the point is that we don’t say that sex is binary in a particular human. We say that sex is binary in humans. The fact that there are very rare humans who have gonadal tissue of both sexes doesn’t invalidate that statement.

By comparison, we say that humans are a bipedal species. The fact that some humans are born with one leg or with none doesn’t invalidate that. They’re still human, but with a variation of leg development.

I want to add for the purpose of not being misleading that there is no documented case ever (at least to my knowledge) of a human being that produces both ova and sperm.

But there are people with both ovarian and testicular tissue who produce neither gamete. It is possible to have XY/XX chimerism with ovarian and testicular tissue - there are documented cases.

In other mammalian species true hermaphroditic individuals have been observed as capable of self fertilization which obviously involves production of both male and female gametes.

Again can't emphasise enough though, this is not an argument for TRA and this is not an argument that people with male advantage of any kind should be able to compete in female sport. But I think we actually give credence to those ideas when we argue that complexity doesn't exist at all when it comes to biological sex - it makes it seems as though biological reality is at odds with a GC position such that GC can't admit to biological reality. There is nothing about acknowledging the complexity of exceptionally rare DSDs that is at odds with a GC position or at odds with wanting those who have male advantages to be excluded from female competitive sport.

I saw a post (can't remember who or what thread so forgive me and take my word for it) along the lines "even daffodils are male or female" with the obvious implication that plants have binary sex categories - this is a good way to make GC feminists look like ignorant ideologues.

There are DSDs in which no gametes are produced. And there are DSD which results in both female ovarian and male testicular tissue being present in the same person. See Ovotesticular disorder of sex development (OT-DSD)

A gonadal definition of sex does not support the assertion that sex is 100% binary in all individuals.

But this is irrelevant. It is not necessary to deny the biological reality of some extremely rare DSDs to be GC feminist or to have the opinion that somebody with male attributes which confer an advantage should not compete in female sport.

It's true to say sex is binary in people who don't have a DSD*

*And indeed is binary in most people who do have a DSD! These are very rare conditions but nevertheless I don't think it is right to deny they exist for ideological reasons.

Sex is defined by the type of gametes a person would produce if their reproductive system is working correctly. The fact that someone with Swyer syndrome doesn't have properly developed ovaries that produce eggs doesn't change the fact that they have a female reproductive system, not a male one. That means they're female.

If someone has the reproductive system of one sex, but the chromosomes that normally belong to the other sex, it's the reproductive system that matters.

I don't know if anyone has posted this before, but this is Dr Emma Hilton's explanation of Swyer Syndrome. (She's a developmental biologist at the University of Manchester.)

https://x.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1819697582647484898

@zita60 but Swyer syndrome has no ovaries and no testes.... so no gametes at all... so do you define by genotype XY and 'male' or phenotype female external genitalia and vagina/ uterus... and what about other DSD where the body parts don't match the norm for those chromosomes?

A person with Swyer's syndrome is female, because they have a female reproduction system that can potentially make female gametes (eggs).

The fact that they have sex chromosomes that usually produce males, XY, isn't relevant. It's about which type of gametes they produce - female.

I have to admit, the recent discussions on DSD have been the first to make me think that things aren't perhaps as binary as I'd previously believed and I am willing to conceed that some of my previously held opinions were based on an over simplified version of science. For a tiny minority of humans, they don't fall neatly into the male / female categories that my previous understanding of biology/ genetics led me to believe there were

Sex is binary. It's about what type of gametes a person will produce, if everything is working correctly.

People with DSDs will be one sex or the other, although their genitals might not have developed correctly. A person might have the sex chromosomes that are supposedly male, XY, and yet have developed a female reproductive system. That means they are female.

The sex chromosomes usually determine which sex the foetus will develop as, but sometimes things go wrong. What matters is what reproduction system the foetus develops - whether it can potentially produce male gametes or female gametes.

I got asked on fb if I had considered that I might have XY chromosomes and therefore I should check my prejudice 🤔 I think me having normal female puberty and 3 children would suggest otherwise.

well no, of course it doesn't. I am simply explaining that a genetic and physical female may sometimes be found to have XY cells in her body

I think we are agreeing with each other

That chimerism after gestating a male child doesn't turn the mother male.

She seems to be saying that retaining some genetic material from a child does not fundamentally alter anything that is sex determining in the mother.

This post makes no sense? What are you saying?

It must be hugely demoralising to realise not one person involved in the olympics or the journalists covering it care about your safety or fairness. They'd happily sacrifice your life in the ring to prevent any male boxers feeling a bit sad.

Handling this situation requires cool heads and sensitivity to those who's gender is more biologically complex.
It's their sex not their gender that's the issue. Do keep up.

I feel so sorry for the female boxers. It's blatant self-ID.

On the other hand, I'm looking forward to the debate in Parliament about simplifying the GRC after this row. Nothing shows how low it can go like the IOC.

I think that the evidence from which it can be inferred is the possession of a female passport, implying a female birth certificate, in a country in which to be transgender is unacceptable. So it's very likely that superficially female genitalia were observed at birth.

This piece of paper is doing a lot of heavy lifting, for an XY individual with a masculine physique, T in the male range, and, quite possibly, male genitalia (I only recently found out that in over half of cases, puberty causes the testicles to descend and/or the penis to grow)!

Thank you, LilyBartsHatShop, the 'Gish Gallop' does the job nicely.
Clever you! All I could think of was 'chaff', as in the strips of aluminium dropped from planes to confuse radar.

You have also proven my point that somebody on MN knows everything. Or vice versa. Put out an obscure question, and some clever MNer, eg LilyBartsHatShop, will get back to you with an answer, it has never failed for me so far!

The wikipedia link is well worth reading, it even suggests countermeasures.

No, they can't.

Seriously? It was huge at the time and led to the IAAF's new rules and a CAS case which ended up with the Semanya ban.

Yes seriously. We don't have the same lives.

Seriously? It was huge at the time and led to the IAAF's new rules and a CAS case which ended up with the Semanya ban.

From what i have seen on social media, a lot of women want to be seen as kind and inclusive, and a lot of men are using it as a stick to beat women with, gleefully calling the Italian boxer weak and a cry baby. I have seen several men on Facebook saying that women's sports are pointless anyway, even the Williams sisters, who are the best female tennis players in the world, hold meaningless titles as a mediocre man can beat them. The misogyny on show is appalling.