I have a DSD and am fed up.

I have shared this opinion on many posts.

Did you also miss the many threads on this topic last week then? Perhaps go back and share your opinion there

I've never been called a TRA or received abuse on this board for saying that someone with CAIS is female

How do they claim to have a problem with it? From what I've seen on here anyone who tries to have any sort of nuance definition of sex or gender, like for example that it's unnecessarily hurtful to insist on falling someone with CAIS male after being asked not to gets labelled a TRA and quite a lot of abuse tbh. I mean, you were on one of the recent threads about this and I note you didn't challenge anyone on this?

That wasn’t my meaning. I can understand why transactivists have problems with this (or claim to). I don’t understand why other feminists get hung up on it.

For those who are looking for a better understanding of the CAIS DSD, this is very well written (imo), and also gets properly into the “how
do people with this disorder get classified”:

theparadoxinstitute.org/read/the-case-of-cais-understanding-the-complexity-of-sex-reversal

@DSDFury did you start this thread coincidentally after there were multiple threads on the topic of DSDs here over the last week?

@DSDFury
I'm a biomedical scientist. The arrogance and scientific illiteracy of the general public still appals me. The main thing I've learned from FWR is that the sex distribution of the arrogance required to assume that a superficial trawl of the internet makes one qualified to comment on a 'technical'/scientific topic probably isn't as skewed as I previously thought.

Lmao a poster is immediately labelled a TRA of they state this regardless of if they're GC. It's the majority opinion of this board.

Asthe likes of Robert Winston and their own clinicians say they’re biologically women, and this tallies with what @girljulianhas posted re legal position, I’m not sure our opinions matter much. I really don’t think that there should be any issue for CAIS women as a result of the SC judgment.

It was uncommon for individuals to seek revision of their sex registration because we didn't have legislation barring them from using spaces associated with their appearance. I suspect many more will seek to change it now.

It is unhelpful though I note very few challenge it on this forum

Not trying to force a gotcha at all, I'm asking what then did the SC mean when it said biological women of we're including people who are biologically male? Personally I'm of the opinion that it makes sense for those with CAIS to be biologically male but considered women, hence why I think the SC decision discriminates against them. I don't see how the argument goes that they are biologically female.

Hang on, spell it out for the hard of understanding like me.

CAIS is a male DSD, but people with CAIS are biologically female? Because their SRY gene doesn’t function?

I was content to say male for very specific purposes (medical, olympics) but pragmatically female.

Whatever the case, DSDs aren’t relevant to the trans/women’s rights discussion and I’m sorry it’s upsetting for those caught up against their will. Melons is clearly trying to force a ‘gotcha’ rather than engaging with the discussion.

Can you tune it out, knowing it isn’t aimed at you?

Yes. I have no idea why anyone (except transactivists) have problems understanding and accepting this.

I’m afraid quite a few women on FWR - some on this thread, quite a few the other thread referred to seem to have been stuck in an oversimplified dogmatic view that XY == ‘male’ , without the proper consideration for SRY gene, functioning androgen receptors.
Its unhelpful all round.

Not true per what I've just posted above about their legally registered sex being considered their "biological sex". So objectively, the fact is that they are biologically women.

Well that's the prevailing objective fact on this forum, no? . OP very coincidentally set up this thread right after those insisting people with CAIS should be called male and man were talking about how those with CAIS don't want to be in this debate. According to the SC judgement, those with CAIS have been excluded from womanhood now and I suppose single sex spaces also.

This is interesting:

"In the UK, all individuals born with DSD have a registered sex at birth, which is considered their biological sex. When a baby is born with an atypical genital appearance, further medical assessments are conducted. A multidisciplinary healthcare team, in consultation with the family, determines the appropriate sex assignment, which is legally recorded as the child's biological sex. Similarly, when a young woman is diagnosed with DSD, e.g. during puberty, comprehensive evaluations are performed to understand the atypical sex development pathway. Unless she, supported by her medical team, chooses to apply for a revision, her registered sex remains her biological sex.

It is uncommon for individuals with DSD to seek a revision of their sex registration and there are limited systematic data available on this matter. DSD-specific provisions for revising sex registration have already been established through the General Register Office (GRO) and require medical evidence. Our current understanding is that the revised sex registration reflects the individual's biological sex. We have contacted the GRO and the Office for Equality and Opportunity to confirm this and to obtain specific legal documents related to this process."

So presumably if a person with 5-ARD or any similar condition was registered female at birth then they are legally female and there's no legal basis for ousting them from women's spaces?

Funny how you've banged on earlier in the thread about how women with CAIS should stay out of women's spaces then?

About 40 odd pages of posters on the previous thread on DSDs, perhaps go read it. Apparently it's asking too much of women to call those with CAIS woman or she. It's not what I'm doing actually, I happen to think those with CAIS are women but then that's because I didnt agree with people's oversimplified description of biological sex .

But you're still misrepresenting biological function as biological purpose by saying it's redundant because it can't do something when science doesn't actually say that. Science just describes how some can or can't reproduce, it doesn't make any comment further than that. When you start oversimplifying to these talking points of the purpose and correct and incorrect then it's an easy slippery slope to repeating the same arguments used to discriminate homosexuality and class it as "wrong"

Who is insisting that people with CAIS should be called male? DSD Families, a charity for people with DSDs and their families say that CAIS is a female DSD.

46, XY DSD Sensitivity to Androgens :: DSD Families

And this is their statement about the Supreme Court ruling.

Supreme Court Ruling 2025 :: DSD Families

Discussions around the ruling may further exacerbate the oversimplification, misrepresentation, and weaponisation of DSD/Intersex by third parties, resulting in an overemphasis on the body in ways that dehumanise the person.

This is what you seem to be doing.