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.

This post makes no sense? What are you saying?

She seems to be saying that retaining some genetic material from a child does not fundamentally alter anything that is sex determining in the mother.

That chimerism after gestating a male child doesn't turn the mother male.

well no, of course it doesn't. I am simply explaining that a genetic and physical female may sometimes be found to have XY cells in her body

I think we are agreeing with each other

I got asked on fb if I had considered that I might have XY chromosomes and therefore I should check my prejudice 🤔 I think me having normal female puberty and 3 children would suggest otherwise.

I have to admit, the recent discussions on DSD have been the first to make me think that things aren't perhaps as binary as I'd previously believed and I am willing to conceed that some of my previously held opinions were based on an over simplified version of science. For a tiny minority of humans, they don't fall neatly into the male / female categories that my previous understanding of biology/ genetics led me to believe there were

Sex is binary. It's about what type of gametes a person will produce, if everything is working correctly.

People with DSDs will be one sex or the other, although their genitals might not have developed correctly. A person might have the sex chromosomes that are supposedly male, XY, and yet have developed a female reproductive system. That means they are female.

The sex chromosomes usually determine which sex the foetus will develop as, but sometimes things go wrong. What matters is what reproduction system the foetus develops - whether it can potentially produce male gametes or female gametes.

A person with Swyer's syndrome is female, because they have a female reproduction system that can potentially make female gametes (eggs).

The fact that they have sex chromosomes that usually produce males, XY, isn't relevant. It's about which type of gametes they produce - female.

@zita60 but Swyer syndrome has no ovaries and no testes.... so no gametes at all... so do you define by genotype XY and 'male' or phenotype female external genitalia and vagina/ uterus... and what about other DSD where the body parts don't match the norm for those chromosomes?

Sex is defined by the type of gametes a person would produce if their reproductive system is working correctly. The fact that someone with Swyer syndrome doesn't have properly developed ovaries that produce eggs doesn't change the fact that they have a female reproductive system, not a male one. That means they're female.

If someone has the reproductive system of one sex, but the chromosomes that normally belong to the other sex, it's the reproductive system that matters.

I don't know if anyone has posted this before, but this is Dr Emma Hilton's explanation of Swyer Syndrome. (She's a developmental biologist at the University of Manchester.)

https://x.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1819697582647484898

There are DSDs in which no gametes are produced. And there are DSD which results in both female ovarian and male testicular tissue being present in the same person. See Ovotesticular disorder of sex development (OT-DSD)

A gonadal definition of sex does not support the assertion that sex is 100% binary in all individuals.

But this is irrelevant. It is not necessary to deny the biological reality of some extremely rare DSDs to be GC feminist or to have the opinion that somebody with male attributes which confer an advantage should not compete in female sport.

It's true to say sex is binary in people who don't have a DSD*

*And indeed is binary in most people who do have a DSD! These are very rare conditions but nevertheless I don't think it is right to deny they exist for ideological reasons.

I want to add for the purpose of not being misleading that there is no documented case ever (at least to my knowledge) of a human being that produces both ova and sperm.

But there are people with both ovarian and testicular tissue who produce neither gamete. It is possible to have XY/XX chimerism with ovarian and testicular tissue - there are documented cases.

In other mammalian species true hermaphroditic individuals have been observed as capable of self fertilization which obviously involves production of both male and female gametes.

Again can't emphasise enough though, this is not an argument for TRA and this is not an argument that people with male advantage of any kind should be able to compete in female sport. But I think we actually give credence to those ideas when we argue that complexity doesn't exist at all when it comes to biological sex - it makes it seems as though biological reality is at odds with a GC position such that GC can't admit to biological reality. There is nothing about acknowledging the complexity of exceptionally rare DSDs that is at odds with a GC position or at odds with wanting those who have male advantages to be excluded from female competitive sport.

I saw a post (can't remember who or what thread so forgive me and take my word for it) along the lines "even daffodils are male or female" with the obvious implication that plants have binary sex categories - this is a good way to make GC feminists look like ignorant ideologues.

Even if no gametes are actually produced, it’s which reproductive system is present that is key. A woman who is infertile is still female.

Fair point about OT-DSD. But even in this condition, we say there are gonadal tissues of both sexes present. Two sexes, binary.

I think the point is that we don’t say that sex is binary in a particular human. We say that sex is binary in humans. The fact that there are very rare humans who have gonadal tissue of both sexes doesn’t invalidate that statement.

By comparison, we say that humans are a bipedal species. The fact that some humans are born with one leg or with none doesn’t invalidate that. They’re still human, but with a variation of leg development.

I want to add for the purpose of not being misleading that there is no documented case ever (at least to my knowledge) of a human being that produces both ova and sperm.

That's my understanding too.That would be true hermaphroditism, which doesn't exist in humans.

Again can't emphasise enough though, this is not an argument for TRA and this is not an argument that people with male advantage of any kind should be able to compete in female sport. But I think we actually give credence to those ideas when we argue that complexity doesn't exist at all when it comes to biological sex - it makes it seems as though biological reality is at odds with a GC position such that GC can't admit to biological reality. There is nothing about acknowledging the complexity of exceptionally rare DSDs that is at odds with a GC position or at odds with wanting those who have male advantages to be excluded from female competitive sport.

I agree that this isn't an argument for TRA, and it doesn't mean people with male sex advantage should be allowed into female sport. And I agree about acknowledging the complexities in the way gametes are produced (or not produced).

But I think the point about the statement that sex is binary is that it means that there are only two types of gametes, and in sexual reproduction they come together to form a new organism.

I don't think the fact that there are some rare variations in which gametes a person can potentially produce, relative to their sex chromosomes, negates the statement that sex is binary. It certainly doesn't allow TRAs to claim that sex is a spectrum.

"even daffodils are male or female" with the obvious implication that plants have binary sex categories

I think they do though. There are still only two types of gametes that must fuse to create a new plant. In some species, both types of gametes are produced in the same plant. In others, each plant makes just one type of gamete. So sex is still binary in plants.

I think perhaps we're just disagreeing about exactly what is meant by the statement that "sex is binary"?

@Zita60

I find that I don't disagree with you at all, I'm in complete agreement.

I agree that sex is binary in humans. I don't think the subtext (*that have developed normally) needs to be spelled out. But as you have intimated, even if I did disagree it would only be a matter of semantics and would have no bearing on the argument that sex is a spectrum in human beings - plainly it isn't.

However I have encountered some arguments from GC feminists recently wherein clearly, they do feel that complexity of biological sex in a tiny number of individuals with rare DSDs does somehow threaten a binary model of understanding human sex - so they have to deny the existence of that complexity. And sometimes to the extent that they are making remarks which further stigmatise DSD. Eg I think saying somebody with CAIS is a "man" with the implication they should live with a male identity due to a Y chromosome they are basically biologically incapable of making any use of other than producing non-functioning male internal organs (that might give them cancer) is just insensitive, stigmatising, mean and completely unnecessary and of no benefit to anyone. And it's clear (to me) that this position is adopted for ideological reasons related to the trans debate.

I feel that not only does that kind of thing make GC feminism look bad and actually gives credence to the idea that GC feminism is at odds (as opposed to in keeping with) biological reality, but is also really unfair to people with DSDs.

I think this is a fascinating discussion.

Is that the technique that’s called a “gish gallop”?

I mean...my husband has de la Chapelle syndrome, which is otherwise called "XX male syndrome" because it results in otherwise normal males who have XX chromosomes and therefore are infertile. I've talked about this on other threads; it's why we have had to use donor sperm. Like most men with XX male syndrome, DH is a normal height, has normal genitals and body hair, and is indistinguishable from any other man except that he can't father children. So yeah, not all XX people are female.

@AShortName I agree with you - for the small number of people with DSDs, including women with XY genotype such as those with CAIS or Swyer syndrome, decisions on athletic competition can indeed be made on a case by case basis.

I also agree that DSDs and transgender are two very different things that are sadly often conflated. I attended a transgender education session put on by our university and was unimpressed that they included people with DSDs under the transgender umbrella.

It seems that the statement 'XY is generally male' is correct, with the exception of some rare DSDs. Thanks for opening this interesting discussion.

Lurker here. Sorry if I mess up posting this, or if it has been posted before. It's from a paper called 'Toward a Robust Definition of Sport Sex' by David J Handelsman

@Tinylittleunicorn "However I have encountered some arguments from GC feminists recently wherein clearly, they do feel that complexity of biological sex in a tiny number of individuals with rare DSDs does somehow threaten a binary model of understanding human sex - so they have to deny the existence of that complexity."
I think it makes complete sense in response to the agressive disrespect for women's boundaries that the trans' rights movement has displayed, to want to make the conceptual boundaries between male and female really stark and clear.
I like the analogy @FOJN gave above, from Colin Wright, about male and female being two sides of a coin, and the tiny number of truly ambiguous DSDs being the sides of the coin.
It also helps me to think in terms of human embryos where Müllerian development pathway = female and Wolffian development pathway = male regardless of which combination of chromosomes, genes and hormones kick off one or the other pathway (this doesn't capture all DSDs but helps me get my head around some of the more common ones).
And even if there are different conceptual categories that will give us slightly different definitions of "male" and "female", it doesn't mean there are no definitional boundaries - and it NEVER means it's ok to violate the ordinary kind of boundaries we talk about when we're talking about bog standard (Wolffian!) male people in women's changing rooms, sporting competitions, gaols &c. &c.
Edited to add: dsdfamilies.org has been the most helpful to me for understanding DSDs but I'm having trouble finding the good infographics I remember on their site.

Another one here who will admit that this whole controversy has made me realise things CAN (rarely) be more complicated than I thought.

We need first of all to accept that there are different, contextually valid, ways of defining sex. Chromosomal makeup is one. External appearance is another. By far the most relevant from a sporting point of view, however, is whether the individual experienced male puberty.

When this story first broke I assumed that anyone with XY chromosomes would have done so. But as described here, in Swyer Syndrome that is not the case, as the individual has no testes so doesn't go through puberty at all.

I don't know whether the same is true of any other DSDs, or where the two boxers at the centre of this fit into it all.

The world athletics rules are incredibly clear about their DSD rules. The testosterone lowering requirements are for :

XY DSD athletes who are androgen sensitive ie go through a male puberty.

So - individuals with CAIS and Swyer who haven’t virilised with puberty don’t need to be have restrictions/exclusions. The DNA cheek swab is a screen - if an athlete is going to be XY then additional analysis can be used to determine if they are androgen sensitive.

(Personally, I would exclude CAIS - the last time there was obligate cheek DNA tests at the Olympics it was found they were over represented in women’s sport. Whether that’s due to phenotype, with tall, long limbs or just absence of periods as no ovaries, uterus)

The complexity doesn’t threaten a binary model of sex. Putting it bluntly, these disorders mean that, reproductively speaking, something has gone wrong. Fertility is compromised, or absent,

Humans are bipedal, yet people are born with different limb variations. People with one leg, no legs, partial limbs etc don’t threaten the notion that humans are bipedal. People with disorders of sex development mean there are more than two sexes

*do not mean.

Mostunexpected · Yesterday 09:33

Soit stands that you can absolutely be male and have a vagina which is something I’ve read many times on here isn’t possible.

By vagina, do you mean "vagina," or do you mean, "external genitalia, which bears a superficial resemblance to a female pudendum"?