Using the ‘but what about those people with extremely rare medical conditions?’ was only ever to attempt to destabilise the humans sex definitions. And only so someone can attempt to support their announcement that they have a gender identity.
But it amounts to fuckwittery. Because what they tried to do, politically leveraged a group’s oppression, is dishonest because the logic doesn’t even work. It is like saying a dog missing a foot can no longer be classified as a dog.
Plus it was done to support the post modernist theory that if someone says they are something, then that is what they are, even if they are materially not.
Yet, because someone read the same one or two articles in either American scientific or Nature, activists just keep repeating the same flawed arguments. Anne Fausto Sterling even wrote that she was joking in her article listing the five or six sexes, but we see that one pop up sometimes. I even seen it used in speeches by US politicians. Then comes the mistaken interpretation of Claire Ainsworth that meant she ended up having to say ‘no there are only two sexes! Just many body variations between them’.
These same few articles that have been misinterpreted result in the ridiculous situation where you have a doctor and a nurse in Fife both declaring that sex is complicated. Because sex now also encompasses a legal fiction too. Because activists successfully convinced governments to allow people with gender identities to change their sex markers on their identitification, this has now been treated as some kind of change that reflects material reality.
It is all because to support the concept that a person can ‘change sex’. Which is impossible, sex had to be redefined, falsely positioned to be complicated and obscure and then treated as if it possible using philosophical theories.
The harm that has been done to so many other people in the progression of this philosophical deconstruction is still growing rapidly each day as we can see from the growing number of different court cases - the women in employment tribunals, the detransitioners, the lesbian groups trying to get permission to exclude male people, the sporting court cases.
And yet, we still get the ‘sex is complicated’ arguments. It is still an almost daily occurrence to seen that phrase on MN. If it is not about female sport, it is about access to female single sex provisions. Strangely it seems never about access to male sport and male single sex spaces.
I put the main thrust of this leveraging of differences in development to destabilise the sex categories, as in the first time it was leveraged politically on a wide scale was when the group of activists convinced the IOC drop sex testing because it distressed those male people with DSDs when they were othered and excluded from womanhood when they were discovered in that testing. It was argued to be against the human right of dignity. That was for the Atlanta Olympics and that activist team involved some people, iirc, who were heavily involved in treating people with transgender identities or they became involved after. Because at least one then was part of the team who convince the IOC soon after to allow post surgical males with transgender identities to compete in female events. And that was that. They used the male people with DSDs to then open the way for other male people.
No. It is not complicated. Sex in humans is not complicated as you say. DSDs can almost reliably be sorted into affecting only one sex of humans. The few that are affect both sexes require further testing to determine what those bodies were formed to produce by way of gametes.