I can't believe she read biology.
Because I do think that when people find out about DSDs, it can come as something of a surprise. I'm thinking of the specific condition where a person looks exactly like a regular female, but actually have a Y-chromosome? That sort of thing. It can turn perceptions upside down a little.
And of course, transactivists know this, which is why they are leveraging it.
And just like all the pieces of data, people have to encounter it, process it, and draw a conclusion.
The same way an awful lot of people don't seem to realise that sex offending is almost exclusively a male crime. Once you've taken that on board, and processed it, the implications slot into place. In the way they don't if you believe men and women are symmetrical in that way.
Likewise misogyny. It can account for so much once you see it, but you have to see it first.
So in terms of chromosomes not always being 100% straightforward, people seem to have grasped that idea and decided that the very concept can therefore call into question the 99% of cases where they are straightforward.
Maggie Chapman looked like she was spouting something that she genuinely believed, but couldn't quite remember the actual wording and if everyone else simply had the knowledge that had been imparted to her, we would all get it.
Of course, under questioning, the concepts that she had been told suddenly started to falter, because she was hearing them through less gullible ears.
If she truly believed that, (despite being unable to come up with a definition of trans), trans people have been trans since birth, she'd have no trouble saying that eight-year-olds should transition. She almost said it, but instead chose to say explore the possibility, because even to her, it started to sound unreasonable.
I have to say, the batshit all or nothing aspects of trans ideology, ie the ideological part, being given a public hearing is a sight to behold.