I have a DSD and am fed up.

The main issue with this is that it depends on context somewhat. Male and female are scientific categories, and in that context, you can only understand CAIS as a male disorder, where a developmental patway that is intended to work one way has gone another way instead.

That's why in the scientific study mentioned above, they would have used male markers - the whole thing would make no sense if that weren't the case, there would be nothing to study if it weren't recognised that the developmental pathway has gone arwy.

However I only mentioned one in the post, which if I am recalling correctly was because it was the one mentioned in the post I was responding to.

Perhaps you wanna read the 40 or so page thread where the majority of this baked think those with CAIS are male and argue with them? I notice your thread hadn't gained much traction

Their sexual drive is literally to those they cannot reproduce with. There is nothing wrong with them. Reproduction is necessary as a whole on the species but science says absolutely nowhere that an individual not being able to reproduce means they are faulty or something went wrong. Reproduction isn't the purpose of humans it's a function we have.

There is some reason to think it does give a sporting advantage. It's something that probably requires more research, but there is an unusually high percentage of women with CAIS in elite sport.

I'm not sure that's wildly important, there are any conditions that mean people have to pursue sports i special categories, but I don't think it's accurate to assume there is no relevant effect.

Science doesn't tell us that sterility means something went wrong. Science isn't prescriptive in that way. That's a cultural belief, science will just describe how and why a person or animal is or isn't able to reproduce it doesn't go into purpose or right or wrong. Yes humans need to reproduce, any species does, to continue but science doesn't tell us that every human has to reproduce or need to be able to, unless you also think science tells us something went wrong with the % of homosexual animals and humans since they're attracted to those there is no possibility of reproduction ?

This is where blind adherence to "chromosomes are chromosomes" just makes people look stupid. Women with CAIS are not "biologically male" even though they are chromosomally male. They are indistinguishable from XX women to all intents and purposes, which is why many families have only very recently discovered that familial CAIS has been the reason for infertility in female family members going back generations.

Yes, this is what I meant. Many definitions of biological sex are scientifically/linguistically accurate for some notion of accuracy (XX/XY, big/small gametes, etc) but they are useless when talking accurately about individuals with DSDs . And yet, every Tom Dick or Harry, or in this case Pam Jill or Mary seem to feel they are experts on DSDs because they want to respond to the onslaught from TRAs' whataboutism.

And, it would be nice if the 99.999% applicability of "two completely clearly separate sexes" could be 100% but I really don't think it works. We've talked above of CAIS - where individuals have XY and are swimming in testosterone but are the epitome of feminine phenotype. Several people above (including a sibling of someone with CAIS) have suggested they should be considered women. I have met and hung out with over a 100 women with CAIS, and most are indistinguishable in histories, sensibilities and appearance from "normal" women. CAIS runs in families, and there are many families with generations of aunts, cousins, great-aunts where it seems calling these family members as males comes across as grotesque. (One scientist gave a talk at a support group using genealogy trees and CAIS adults and family members were perplexed with the squares used in the trees, until they realized that CAIS women were being represented using the symbols for men.)

But what about Partial AIS? It is a very complicated scenario, and very difficult for the individuals who present with a variety of phenotypes and embryological histories, tragic I would say on a personal basis. Most of them make a pragmatic decision on how to live, with least medical intervention. I've heard some of them getting annoyed at questions of gender, for them the main psychological coping mechanism is to not feel like a total freak of nature.

And here we seem to have to have reached a consensus of the famous 5-ARD being males, but I know of a handful who were diagnosed in childhood as having 5-ARD, had orchiectomies, and live their lives as women with even siblings unaware of their conditions. A very different scenario from athletes who may not had the surgery and have had a masculinizing puberty. Two completely differently outcomes with the same condition.

So, in my opinion, guided by many years of both academic study and personal inquiry, I feel DSDs provide exceptions to any attempt at solidifying definitions of sex. And yet, this doesn't mean that Thomas should compete against female swimmers, or Upton should change with female nurses.

Thank you for a thought provoking thread. I think it is very important people with DSD control the narrative about their condition.

I think the fundamental difference for me is that a DSD and the manner it expresses is not a choice but a biological reality. You don’t identify with the biological expression, it’s just who you are.

As a redhead I am endlessly annoyed at being co opted into the argument to somehow ‘prove’ that DSDs aren’t rare when:

a) most of the conditions that they lump in to get the 2% figure aren’t actually DSDs and

b) being a redhead is actually pretty rare globally even if it isn’t uncommon in the U.K./Ireland/Scandinavia etc.

and if I (ginger person) am annoyed by this mangling of statistics to uphold a disingenuous protrans argument I can imagine those who have actual, diagnosed-in-childhood/at puberty DSDs must be bloody furious!

(Apologies if someone already said this but I’ve only read the first page of the thread so far, off to read the rest of it now).

Thanks

"I can't think of a situation where my condition is likely to cause an issue in day-to-day life."

I suspect that this is the pertinent part. And no, I doubt there is any chance of karyotype or even 'genital' inspections ever coming in despite the catastrophising that we so often see.

If by sport you refer to a DSD with no masculinising on the body, then yes, it is important and highly likely that sex testing will take that into account to allow decisions that will be fair. I would expect that any sex testing done these days would have a list of exceptions that those DSDs would be listed under so that they don't mean further testing, if I remember correctly.

Thanks for the answer

I think some GC people who obsess about this almost seem to think that the TRAs are right. That if sex is somehow not binary it would mean that anyone could be whoever they want to be.

Which of course it doesn't.. Whether, for instance, a woman with CAIS thinks of herself as female or intersex has absolutely no relevance to whether a male person is able to become female.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379434-transwomen-and-transmen-do-not-have-dsds-discuss?reply=145983848&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share

I can't imagine how difficult that must have been

Thank you OP, and others with direct experience.

I do tend to agree with @orkidto some extent - sometimes women on this board oversimplify and can get dogmatic about aspects of DSDs when the subject arises. It’s not always helpful either to people with DSDs or women’s rights.

Also massively grateful for this thread OP. I hate that it always takes those living with the impact of their conditions to have to educate others as well. Like they haven't enough to be dealing with. More widely society should better support education and awareness raising of the impact of rare or "hidden" conditions and disabilities.