Good grief. Now they’re saying that not all xx are female and not all xy are male. And that xy ‘generally' means male.

[AShortName]

The more this misinformation spreads, the more people will believe it. I am concerned that if it continues, then it will soon become regarded as a truth.

There is no continuum or spectrum of sex.

The is also true of monoecious species like snails and daffodils - they have male gametes and female gametes and nothing inbetween.

I think Colin Wright explains it really well when he's says biological sex is like a coin, it has two sides but it also has a narrow edge.

Male and female are opposite sides of the coin and DSD's are the narrow edge not a third side of the coin.

I agree with PP that binary sex is fairly straight forward and well understood but the more I read about DSD's the more I think we understand very little about them. I've seen tables where multiple karyotype variations are described as Turners Syndrome for example. I suspect the rarity of such conditions makes it harder to study them and develop a reliable and comprehensive picture of all the variations.

None of it changes the fact that there are only two sexes.

You are taking one incredibly rare occurence ( even in the context of DSDs) and trying to make a generalised rule that says as a consequence of this one particularly rare example, all male people with DSDs should be permitted into women's sports.

but there has already been one response to my post referring to that (albeit hypothetical) child as “he”, and the child should be told they are male and be expected to adapt to that.

if someone has such a dsd and wishes to continue life as a female then no one should be referring to them as “he”, or insisting they are male.

Do you think the hypothetical child won't realise something's amiss when he doesn't start female puberty but instead goes through male puberty? Do you think this situation should not be investigated? Should his maleness somehow be kept a secret from him?

if someone has such a dsd and wishes to continue life as a female then no one should be referring to them as “he”, or insisting they are male.

This is the same as the TRA argument that we should pretend men are women if they demand it.

No.

This complexity has gained attention of activists who wish to deconstruct the two sexes, claiming that people with DSDs are not male or female. But humans are a gonochoric species: individuals are either male or female throughout their entire life cycle. People with DSDs are not new sexes (this would require a third gamete type), and they are not both sexes

Either male or female.

Even the dictionary definition gets it.

Woman: Adult human female of or denoting the sex who bears eggs.

'Denoting'

'Eggs'

TRAs have been going out of their way for years to try and include DSDs under their ever expanding umbrella. They've even tried to claim that a trans ID stems from a DSD.

Women addressing these issues (for bloody years), are not strangers to this technique.

Every human is either male or female. And no, doctors are not stumped as to which.

As for whether it's kind to discuss it, that's not really relevant, in my opinion. If we don't discuss it, people are going to continue to pretend that two obvious men, unfairly battering women, might actually not be men.

Yet again, take it up with transactivists.

They are the ones who, in the teeth of helpless opposition from the very people they're trying to co-op, have dragged DSDs into it.

The science is fascinating, and I enjoy these arguments, but don't we need something snappier? Something that will thwart the disingenuous obfuscators with political motives, and convince the previously uninvolved, but now confused, public?

How about:

XX=female and XY=male is the norm. It is very, very rare for (developmental variations to cause) someone to have some features normally found in the opposite sex. It would be very simple (and dignified and non-invasive) for all athletes to be swabbed for the SRY (maleness instructing) gene, so they can be excluded from female competition.

(Optional, or keep in reserve: you will hear that some XY individuals look just like women and have few or no male features that would give them an unfair advantage, because they cannot process T. Regulators should decide in a transparent way whether these individuals as a class merit an exception, based purely on the science (no individual's medical history would need to be revealed). These two boxers don't fit that category.)

It's still not very snappy! Better suggestions?

Adults have responsibility for children. Children are not equipped to make such over-arching life decisions. A child with an identified DSD should have this introduced to them in an age appropriate way and at an age appropriate time. It would be cruel and irresponsible to have them believe one thing about themself, only for this to disintegrate at puberty.

If it is known that this child is likely to go through the puberty of the 'other' sex - then this can be prepared for and understood beforehand. Pre-pubertal children are quite ambiguous anyway. They don't need to be funnelled into particular sex specific streotypes or activities or clothing. Their own nature will determine their interests and inclinations.

*if someone has such a dsd and wishes to continue life as a female then no one should be referring to them as “he”, or insisting they are male.

No one is trying to find out who's got a DSD, and running up to them to upset them about it, ffs.

Sex matters when it matters. When it doesn't, it doesn't.

no they are actually male because the sry gene which is normally on the Y chromosome and is the actual cause of male pathway development has been transposed onto an X chromosome.

in 99.99+% of men that is the same as xy.

how a man handles being diagnosed with this is between him and his family/doctors, but he would have testosterone in normal male range which should exclude him from female sports.

If only the IOC was as articulate and informed as some of the people who post here.

I think there is an easy balance to be struck and it only takes a very little nuance (though some on mumsnet do seem to be incapable of this even to the point of denying that externally feminising XY DSD exists!)

You can't compete in female sport if you have some genetics or phenotype that is male (sadly for that individual but maintains fairness, safety and integrity of female sport).

But at the same time, putting female sport aside, otherwise insisting that people with an XY DSD who are externally feminised - to the extent they were sexed as female at birth and raised with a female identity, to the extent that they appear female until you get out a speculum or ultrasound machine (as for example is the case with CAIS) - should be forced to live as men is mad and cruel.

Just because the complexity of biological sex for a very small % people with DSD has been weaponised by TRA doesn't mean GC feminists need to adopt a knee jerk absolutist position.

Of course I'm not trying to make a generalised rule out of it. But the people saying "XX=female. End of." certainly are. I'm pointing out that if you apply a strict genetic test, then it might not necessarily close the door on permitting male-bodied individuals into female competition. It will just result in unscrupulous individuals scouring developing countries for individuals with 46,XX DSDs to compete as women, just as they have been doing with 46,XY 5-ARD indivudals.

The rules needs to address both karotype (genetics) AND phenotype (body composition).

I think they're every bit as informed. They just don't give a flying fuck. Captured as hell.

@DorotheaDiamond exactly - yet some posters are arguing for a strict XX=female rule in sports. That's going to bite them on the bum.

It would indeed be perfectly lovely to have a wonderful soundbite that could express all the complexity of a DSD, in six words.

If it rhymed, even better.

Until then, we'll just have to keep explaining.

Don't 80% have the SRY gene, which can be detected? The remaining 20% have a raised incidence of other medical problems. And why would they enter women's sport? They don't know they're XX.

They are, they just care more about "being kind" and "inclusive" rather than fairness or safety.

It is also perhaps that when you meet a person affected by these disorders you can relate to them as a person - very sympathy

And it's much harder t feel sympathy for the people who are not directly affected ( when you are discussing the person )

It's like people who will save one life even if that means more people will die as a result

Posters keep mentioning about unscrupulous people. 'scouring the world' for individuals with DSD to compete in sports.

What evidence is there of this?

Yep, SRY gene can be tested for - as I said earlier there needs to be a rule that addresses both phenotype and karotype.

Why would the enter women's sport? Because unscrupulous promoters and countries will do ANYTHING to win, genetic screening of potential athletes to exploit loopholes has already happened.

Test test test test test

If there is an SRY

It must be a guy

Yes, of course.....and that is why their obfuscations and diversions are not shedding any light or the necessary clarity required on the situation.

Haha!! I was hoping someone who was knowledgeable and creative simultaneously could do something. I hadn't expected it to happen so quick!

If I was to do a search on the internet , I would search around South Africa around the time of castor s.