Page 2 | Definition of "woman" / implications for people with DSDs

spannasaurus · 21/04/2025 19:07

Some people think that PCOS is an intersex condition so some of those self described intersex people may just be women with PCOS

LittleBigHead · 21/04/2025 19:06

People with DSDs do not have two sets of genitals! That is a very old fantasy (going back to the greeks - remember Tiresias?), translated into trans-identified porn in the modern world.

As other posters have said, people with DSDs very often have quite extensive medical examinations, screening etc. They know their sex.

Cases such as Caster Semenya and the Algerian boxer point to other issues, not that "intersex" people are both sexes on a spectrum.

They were born into less developed countries with less medical expertise available more generally for all but the rich.

They are also born into cultures/countries where girls are far less valued than boys. So male babies who don't immediately appear male, or are less strong, tall etc, will be related to the lesser status of female. There was quite a lot of really thoughtful and knowledgeable journalism about this at the time of the last Olympics - I'm summarising it rather crudely here.

Original poster

proximalhumerous · 21/04/2025 19:04

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 21/04/2025 18:58

Well which toilets do those with DSDs use just now? I'm not sure what relevance they or you think this has to them? Are they using toilets opposite to their sex recorded at birth?

I think some of them are, yes. And some look quite ambiguous physically/facially.

OP posts:

Merrymouse · 21/04/2025 19:01

proximalhumerous · 21/04/2025 12:56

Two points, but I didn't want to start two threads as there are already several.

Am I being stupid / obtuse / disingenuous / unreasonable to wonder how the recent judgment could possibly have gone any other way in a sane society? I mean how can the definition of "x" be something that started off as "y" and changed artificially (as opposed to organically) to become "x"? That would be totally illogical, surely?

Additionally, can anyone point me towards any credible sources to explain how this ruling is likely to affect people with DSDs? Understandably, a lot of self-described* intersex people believe that sex is a spectrum, but given the SC disagrees with this, what are the implications?

*When I say self-described I mean that they use this term rather than "DSD" to describe themselves, not that they merely identify as intersex without any medical diagnosis.

It wont affect them, unless they identify as trans and have a GRC

GargoylesofBeelzebub · 21/04/2025 18:58

Well which toilets do those with DSDs use just now? I'm not sure what relevance they or you think this has to them? Are they using toilets opposite to their sex recorded at birth?

spannasaurus · 21/04/2025 18:57

Ive read part of the Michael Foran article explaining the Supreme Court decision and there was mention of legal cases about where the sex of a person with a DSD was disputed. I can't remember any of the details but I think quite old so possibly before the genetic testing that is used now.

I can't imagine a case where someone with a DSD diagnosis from a recognised qualified doctor would have to prove their sex was something other than their doctor had determined. Particularly for a sex specific DSD

Original poster

proximalhumerous · 21/04/2025 18:52

fanOfBen · 21/04/2025 18:46

That's interesting - can you say anything about whether you have reason to believe they actually have DSDs? Or is it possible that some/most/all of them are self-identifying as intersex?

Show quote history

I only have their word(s) for it, but several of them have made their whole identity and career out of being intersex, so it would be a pretty big fib if it isn't true. It's just frustrating that so many of the more vocal ones who are steering the group are TRAs - it's become more of a trans rights group than an intersex one imo.

OP posts:

Original poster

proximalhumerous · 21/04/2025 18:48

fanOfBen · 21/04/2025 18:41

Not entirely sure what you're getting at, but for example a genetic test would identify the extremely rare cases where someone has a functioning SRY gene that has been moved away from a Y chromosome, whereas karyotyping wouldn't. Tbh I don't really see how any of this is relevant to "the sex/gender debate". TRAs like to say that sex is awfully complicated because of the existence of DSDs but this is just a stupid argument. Sex is only complicated in the same way that everything in developmental biology is complicated - everything that can go wrong will, very occasionally, go wrong. I suppose it's just a warning to be careful with precisely what you say. I doubt anyone would actually want someone with CAIS (XY chromosomes, SRY gene, but a complete inability to react to the testosterone so phenotypically female as in really do, involuntarily, pass) to have to use the men's toilets because of that Y chromosome - but it's a non argument: there aren't people with CAIS being thrown out of the ladies' because nobody would know who they are and we aren't doing karyotyping at the door.

Show quote history

I just wanted to properly understand the difference between a karyotype test and a genetic test.

I agree it's a stupid argument, but I was told off the other day for describing a DSD as an anomaly as that was "medicalising and reductive", apparently. I mean it's pretty much a textbook example of a medical anomaly that someone can have XY chromosomes and present as unambiguously female, but there you go.

OP posts:

fanOfBen · 21/04/2025 18:46

proximalhumerous · 21/04/2025 18:35

I have been surprised by how many intersex people are transactivists, so perhaps they are not all being entirely honest.

Show quote history

That's interesting - can you say anything about whether you have reason to believe they actually have DSDs? Or is it possible that some/most/all of them are self-identifying as intersex?

spannasaurus · 21/04/2025 18:45

proximalhumerous · 21/04/2025 18:38

Because I have one myself. I don't think the ruling will make any difference to those of us who aren't also trans, but the majority of people I know with DSDs seem very upset by the ruling so I'm trying to work out whether I'm missing something.

Show quote history

I understand. You've not missed anything in the Act but TRAs have tried to use DSDs as some kind of justification for sex not being binary for a long time. I would suspect that TRAs are suggesting that the act means that people with DSDs are now not going to be allowed into females spaces if they have a Y chromosome even if they are female.

Along similar lines to women are going to get strip searched by male police officers who mistake them for transwomen

Original poster

proximalhumerous · 21/04/2025 18:43

MCCN · 21/04/2025 18:30

Not an expert but IAUI it's the SRY gene (part of the Y chromosome) which causes male characteristics to develop. World Athletics have recently approved a test to determine whether an athlete is biologically female which tests for this SRY gene specifically, rather than just XX / XY

Swyer's syndrome is XY but without the SRY gene, so male characteristics don't develop and female (albeit infertile) ones do. Seems like it's vanishingly rare though.

I think it has recently been discovered that a faulty SRY gene is one of three (?) reasons that can lead to Swyer's. It's about 1 in 80,000.

OP posts:

fanOfBen · 21/04/2025 18:41

proximalhumerous · 21/04/2025 18:28

Ah right, that makes sense, thanks. So if there was genital ambiguity presumably a genetic test would be carried out for clarification? And what would that show that's relevant to the sex/gender debate besides chromosomes?

Show quote history

Not entirely sure what you're getting at, but for example a genetic test would identify the extremely rare cases where someone has a functioning SRY gene that has been moved away from a Y chromosome, whereas karyotyping wouldn't. Tbh I don't really see how any of this is relevant to "the sex/gender debate". TRAs like to say that sex is awfully complicated because of the existence of DSDs but this is just a stupid argument. Sex is only complicated in the same way that everything in developmental biology is complicated - everything that can go wrong will, very occasionally, go wrong. I suppose it's just a warning to be careful with precisely what you say. I doubt anyone would actually want someone with CAIS (XY chromosomes, SRY gene, but a complete inability to react to the testosterone so phenotypically female as in really do, involuntarily, pass) to have to use the men's toilets because of that Y chromosome - but it's a non argument: there aren't people with CAIS being thrown out of the ladies' because nobody would know who they are and we aren't doing karyotyping at the door.

Original poster

proximalhumerous · 21/04/2025 18:39

BathTangle · 21/04/2025 18:36

Reading with interest as I would like to be able to discuss this with some authority: is anyone able to point me to a scientific/medical source that sets this out clearly please? I am from a scientific background but no longer work in the field so am out of touch with the most helpful sources. Thank you 🙏

Good luck, as this is what I've been trying to achieve since starting the thread!!

OP posts:

BelfastBard · 21/04/2025 18:39

BathTangle · 21/04/2025 18:36

Reading with interest as I would like to be able to discuss this with some authority: is anyone able to point me to a scientific/medical source that sets this out clearly please? I am from a scientific background but no longer work in the field so am out of touch with the most helpful sources. Thank you 🙏

Are you on X? Emma Hilton @fondofbeetlesposted loads about DSDs, with more clarity and patience than she had to during the whole Imane Khelif furore. Loads of good info if you do a search for DSD on her timeline

Original poster

proximalhumerous · 21/04/2025 18:38

spannasaurus · 21/04/2025 18:14

OP why are you so concerned with the sex of people with DSDs?

What specific part of the ruling do you think might affect them?

Because I have one myself. I don't think the ruling will make any difference to those of us who aren't also trans, but the majority of people I know with DSDs seem very upset by the ruling so I'm trying to work out whether I'm missing something.

OP posts:

BathTangle · 21/04/2025 18:36

Reading with interest as I would like to be able to discuss this with some authority: is anyone able to point me to a scientific/medical source that sets this out clearly please? I am from a scientific background but no longer work in the field so am out of touch with the most helpful sources. Thank you 🙏

Original poster

proximalhumerous · 21/04/2025 18:35

ViolasandViolets · 21/04/2025 18:23

I would also be very wary of taking the word of transactivists who claim to be intersex. May claim impossible conditions, or different incompatible conditions depending on what they have recently read. I remember one claiming that doctors didn’t know what sex she was even though she was pregnant. Others give the game away by declaring their GP diagnosed them that afternoon with a condition that would require genetic testing.

I have been surprised by how many intersex people are transactivists, so perhaps they are not all being entirely honest.

OP posts:

MCCN · 21/04/2025 18:30

Not an expert but IAUI it's the SRY gene (part of the Y chromosome) which causes male characteristics to develop. World Athletics have recently approved a test to determine whether an athlete is biologically female which tests for this SRY gene specifically, rather than just XX / XY

Swyer's syndrome is XY but without the SRY gene, so male characteristics don't develop and female (albeit infertile) ones do. Seems like it's vanishingly rare though.

Original poster

proximalhumerous · 21/04/2025 18:28

ViolasandViolets · 21/04/2025 18:18

Genetic testing at birth can identify the sex of all those with DSDs. XY is part of a karyotype (just looks at chromosomes) not genotype which would be the genes. We can now look at the whole genotype of newborns routinely.

Show quote history

Ah right, that makes sense, thanks. So if there was genital ambiguity presumably a genetic test would be carried out for clarification? And what would that show that's relevant to the sex/gender debate besides chromosomes?

OP posts:

Nevertrustacop · 21/04/2025 18:24

Yup everyone with a dsd in the UK knows what sex they are. Most are completely obvious. Eg Turner syndrome female. Kleinfelter male. Anything not obvious would be tested. In countries without access to health care people may accidentally in very few cases be perceived to be the incorrect sex.

ViolasandViolets · 21/04/2025 18:23

I would also be very wary of taking the word of transactivists who claim to be intersex. May claim impossible conditions, or different incompatible conditions depending on what they have recently read. I remember one claiming that doctors didn’t know what sex she was even though she was pregnant. Others give the game away by declaring their GP diagnosed them that afternoon with a condition that would require genetic testing.

ViolasandViolets · 21/04/2025 18:18

proximalhumerous · 21/04/2025 18:09

Of course that's the starting point, as it should be, but I was asking specifically about the exceptions. Swyer's Syndrome, for example, has an XY genotype but a female phenotype (if my terminology is correct).

Show quote history

Genetic testing at birth can identify the sex of all those with DSDs. XY is part of a karyotype (just looks at chromosomes) not genotype which would be the genes. We can now look at the whole genotype of newborns routinely.

spannasaurus · 21/04/2025 18:14

OP why are you so concerned with the sex of people with DSDs?

What specific part of the ruling do you think might affect them?

Original poster

proximalhumerous · 21/04/2025 18:09

puffyisgood · 21/04/2025 17:47

the starting point is obviously that anyone with a y chromosome (including xxy people but nearly always of course xy) is male and anyone without (including x0 but nearly always of course xx) is female.

this is a great starting point, far better than eg assuming a coin will land H or T rather than on its side. the arguable exceptions to it are real but easily rare enough to be dealt with on a case by case basis.

Edited

Of course that's the starting point, as it should be, but I was asking specifically about the exceptions. Swyer's Syndrome, for example, has an XY genotype but a female phenotype (if my terminology is correct).

OP posts:

Original poster

proximalhumerous · 21/04/2025 18:07

I mean “resolved” as in the early ambiguity later becomes unambiguous. It’s the usual verb for such a situation.

In the case of ambiguity in the appearance of newborns, it resolves all by itself, which is why I phrased it in an active rather than a passive voice.

@Sazzasez Thank you for the explanation. You actually wrote, "It's usually resolves..." which obviously contains a typo, so I didn't know whether you meant to write, "It usually resolves" which suggests it happens completely naturally, or "It's usually resolved..." which is passive voice and could suggest there might be some medical intervention. Sorry to be picky, but I was genuinely unsure which you meant.

OP posts: