I have a DSD and am fed up.

@DSDFury @ThatCyanCat I get the analogy but are you saying there is absolutely no difference between those with DSDs you want to class as biological females and those without a DSD that are biological female? There's nothing different in their physiology, life experiences, needs etc? There's absolutely no reason for them to be defined differently at all?

You can say the yeast isn't doing a thing in that analogy, but it doesn't mean it's irrelevant to the definition of what kind of bread it is.

You seem to have a tendency of subtly misrepresenting people so it's not immediately obvious,

Nothing subtle about it, just straight up misrepresentation and dishonesty to a very clear agenda. They always think they're being clever and they never are. The entire argument is based on misrepresentation, obfuscation and dishonesty so there is nowhere else to go.

Your baking analogy is very good, clear, accurate and easy to understand. Don't be surprised by the response it'll get.

Because I'm not starting thread topic about myself? And again it's not asking for a bunch of info from OP it's asking her particularly DSD given she thinks she is biologically female with XY chromosomes. She doesn't want to share, fine, but otherwise was the OP just to tell people to stop discussing their opinions on DSDs but also accept that those with XY chromosomes are biologically female.

By the way, (and this time I would like a reply), you didn't reply to my question when I asked you if you identify as trans. So do you? Or do you have a close family member who does? Such as a child, sibling or spouse

I must have completely missed this as I only saw you ask my sex and if I have a DSD. And nope I'm not trans, and I've never met a trans person if I'm honest. I'm female (biologically although apparently that doesn't have a defined meaning anymore but what I mean by it is XX ..)

Not everyone with a DSD being argued as biologically female has a uterus and a vagina. Those with CAIS don't have a uterus for example and their vagina is a blind pouch, requiring dialators. Would all those who have a DSD that requires HRT to induce puberty have an outwardly female phenotype without it? Probably not.

We all have different opinions on it hence it being discussed. You can't just say no one should discuss DSDs and accept your opinion that those with XY chromosomes should be called biologically female just because you consider yourself one and we can't comment our opinion because you don't want to disclose your particular DSD (fine!)

Yes.
if someone has problems understanding that, the fault lies with them.

sometimes threads remind me of that Monty Python sketch about people who just want to have an argument. I’ve had some of my posts not very subtly misrepresented too. Not always worth engaging further beyond that point, let them have the dubious pleasure of ‘the last word’. At this stage I’ve lost track of what point some posters are really trying to make anyway!

If nothing is outing on an anonymous forum, why don't you just post lots of personal information about yourself? Anything will do, your personal medical information, where you work, where your children go to school, that sort of thing? (Obviously I'm not expecting you to actually do this, just trying to explain to you more clearly how ridiculous your demands of the OP are.)

By the way, (and this time I would like a reply), you didn't reply to my question when I asked you if you identify as trans. So do you? Or do you have a close family member who does? Such as a child, sibling or spouse?

If your anonymous username has outed you beyond the point of deniability to someone who already knows the very scant information you've shared in your post I still fail to understand the issue. You're not the only person in their mid 50s either.

And as I said before, this issue comes up when there are people with MALE DSDs also claiming to be defined as female biological sex because of their phenotype while having to use HRT to induce that. It would be one thing if you thought these were totally separate issues and thought your chromosomes made you male but you're a woman, but when you also want to spin it that DSDs that only affects male chromosomes are biologically female you surely must understand how it's messy and gets discussed?

What exactly is being outed if they knew you have a DSD? And wonder what about? That you're fed up of DSDs being discussed? Still not making any sense tbh

We don't actually know, hence the speculation.
Swyers is also considered a male DSD, as is CAIS, despite others being of the opinion those with CAIS are "biologically female" and we don't all agree with that. That's why they're discussed. You can't shut down all discussion because people don't agree with you and insist anyone who feels they need discussing on this issue when we are trying to define female for the purpose of women's spaces is arguing for a dicks out free for all in women's spaces. In fact, some could feel you're doing that by insisting everyone should agree that certain people with MALE chromosomes are female regardless of how they look.
Another one so fed up of talking about DSDs so why click on a thread about them? Unlese you're just fed up of people not automatically agreeing with you or fed up that you haven't formed an opinion omyet on DSDs youre uneducated about so just shut down discussion as a TRA talking point.

it's suspected Imane Khelif may have Swyers

See? This is always where the "but DSDs" people are going. Khelif does not have Swyers, he has 46 ARD XY. It's a male condition. He's a man with a masculinised body and male athletic advantage. He was incorrectly thought to be female at birth because this DSD leads to unusual external genitalia (they often don't look female but there's a tendency to assume that if it looks "wrong" then it's got to be a girl rather than a boy) and that's his misfortune. But he's a man, his DSD affects only men, men with this DSD don't belong in women's sports and once again for the peanut gallery, it doesn't have anything to do with being trans and it's not an argument for a dicks-out free-for-all among women and little girls.

Not surprised OP is sick of it, I have no DSD and I've had it up to here with this.

The incidence of Swyers is c.1:80,000, so it's potentially an awful lot more outing than stating your DH's hobby is cycling.

The incidence rate of anything doesn't make it outting (I mean you're alluding to being so feminine no would know you have a DSD plus it's not like there's some register of those with Swyers so this is a weird point!). Swyers in particular has been a relevant talking point given it's suspected Imane Khelif may have Swyers so no it's not a given that a particular DSD means everyone is in agreement that someone with Swyers belongs in women's sports or that they all look so feminine they should go unchallenged in single sex spaces. No need to reveal further info but I think your point that DSDs and the trans issue aren't connected still makes little sense and given you are lumping all DSDs in together is bizarre as only some are "dragged" into this debate and it's because they're relevant and you aren't even providing your opinion as someone with a DSD on their relevance in sports or spaces, your post is basically just saying you "pass" really well so none of it's an issue for you, which again clashes with whether we are basing SSS on how feminine someone looks.

Anyway you're fed up with DSDs being part of the discussion on trans issues so it makes total sense to start a discussion about them where we regularly discuss DSDs as part of the trans debate.

They used the example of defining life and death in the SP tribunal. Death can be confirmed using somatic, circulatory and neurological criteria.

However, that does not mean that death is a nebulous concept and I can apply for my granny's pension on behalf of her ghost.

I didn't get how physically the disorder represents, do you have a Penis and vagina or just missing womb

People don’t seem to have such strong, conflicting opinions on gravity

Of course not, there's no way to exploit it as a scientifically illiterate way of arguing that men should be able to get their knobs out in the ladies' and smash women's heads in in boxing rings and take their medals, but I'm sure the TRAs are working on it. Principle is the same, though.

I'm not at all convinced by the "phenotypically female" argument, either, given that there is no uterus or ovaries, and the vagina is a blind canal, all of which can be ascertained by touch or visually.

Unless you’re the person themselves, only if you’re a gynaecologist or possibly an intimate partner…or if you have x-ray vision @TempestTost??

The analogy with Down syndrome doesn’t work. Of course people with this syndrome or any other trisomy are human. There aren’t two forms, there is no binary here.

There are two sexes however, and chromosomes are just one of the things that needs to be looked at in cases of DSD. This is not controversial among medical experts as far as I am aware.

I don’t know that ‘a person with a missing bit of a Y chromosome is still fundamentally male’. Depends on the missing bit, doesn’t it? (This is not what happens in CAIS anyway. It’s caused by a mutation on the X chromosome usually, one that affects signalling from Y and thus development.)

Some of this is just about semantics. Is ‘chromosomally male’ always the same as ‘male’ in the context of DSDs? Even if critical signalling from Y is non-functional? Personally, I would think not.

CAIS is a 46,XY DSD. You can call that a male DSD if you want, but it’s mostly women living with this condition.

Are you saying that those with dsds like Sewyer's or CAIS, have bodies formed around producing female gametes? I'm not sure how you would conclude that.

As a few people have pointed out, there is some reason to think there can be a sporting advantage in some of these instances, although it's not well understood.