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.

I agree. I don't know who started it, but calling disorders of sexual development "differences of sexual development" seems like just another attempt to pretend sex is a spectrum, and men (it's always men, isn't it?) can be women if they say so, or pretend they have a DSD and that they're simply "different" women.

I'm not sure that's true, @Catsmere. I think "differences" or "variations" of sexual development comes from reference to the fact that there are variations in the way that a human can develop into a male or a female.
In my experience activists attempting to coopt the reality of DSDs to advance self-id always use the term "intersex." Which is a particularly misleading term, but still wasn't chosen by activists. Just capitalised on by them.

Yes, but these are not a spectrum of normal sexual development, which to me is what "differences" rather than "disorders" implies.

Quite right about intersex being a particularly misleading term.

I think that's a brilliant summary of all the various possibilities of typical male and female, and the different DSDs - and, crucially, "sport sex", which is very helpful when deciding whether someone with a particular DSD has male physical advantage and should not be competing in the female sport category.

Thanks for posting it!

The key issue is that the species was designed with 2 developmental pathways for sexual reproduction and that healthy humans who have developed typically will be male or female and will have a time window where they have the capability to reproduce.

DSDs occur when people do not develop typically/appropriately - something has gone wrong and there has been a developmental fault. There is not another sex, or a previous misunderstanding in biology, there is a fault in development. Discovering a new cancer doesn't lead people to question whether our understanding of the default of healthy cell reproduction is questionable.

There was a movement designed to remove stigmatising language such as 'abnormal', 'dysfunction' and 'disordered'. Labelling people in this way is clearly wrong, but applying them to diseases and disorders is not (e.g Kidney dysfunction/malfunction, abnormal cells etc.).

There are a world of problems arising from medical professionals, and those reporting on medical issues, seeking to remove 'stigmatising' labels from biological facts. People are a lot more than their medical conditions but medical conditions sit above and beyond socially engineered narratives that seek to influence social behaviour.

I think that's a very good point. GC feminists have to be careful not to fall into the same traps as TRAs do. Complexity in sex can be acknowledged without it meaning that sex is a spectrum.

Some of the things that GC feminists say are hostages to fortune, and can be seized on by TRAs. I also hate to see GC feminists resorting to using insults in the same way that seems so common among TRAs (or at least the TRAs that are very active on social media). It's not only cruel, but it doesn't help in putting forward our position.

I agree about not forcing someone with a DSD to live as their biological sex, if it's more appropriate for them to live as the sex they have always appeared to be. And I think that how someone "lives" shouldn't be relevant to things like which sex category they compete in in sport. That's the mistake I think the IOC are making with the boxers - they're saying that because they have F in their passports and have lived as female, then they are female for all purposes, including for competing in female boxing. It's a ludicrous, and dangerous, position to take.

I agree! It's so nice to be able to share ideas and facts calmly, and discuss them without hurling insults at each other, which is what seems to happen a lot on social media.

I've been learning a lot through what others have posted and also the reading I've been doing recently to clarify my thoughts on the two "female" boxers. Although I was already aware of many DSDs and how they affect whether a person should compete as male or female, I've learned more about the subject here.

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.

From what I've read, sex is defined by the type of gamete that the organism can potentially produce (which type of gonads they have, whether they actually produce gametes or not). But sex is normally determined by the sex chromosomes, (i.e. the sex chromosomes - or specific genes on them - usually cause the foetus to develop along the male or female reproductive pathway.)

This article seems useful in explaining the difference between how sex is defined and how it's determined: www.theparadoxinstitute.com/read/defining-sex-vs-determining-sex

Chromosomes aren't sex, but they usually indicate the sex of the organism. So they can usefully be used in sex testing for female sport. I agree with @nolongersurprised that the DNA cheek swab can be used as a screen. In the rare cases where the presence of a Y chromosome has been found but the person doesn't seem to be male, further testing would clarify what their condition is and whether they have been through male puberty and hence have male sporting advantage. (Similarly for someone who appears to be male but doesn't have a Y chromosome.)

The table that @ellenback21 linked to earlier is useful in showing which sex a person with a particular DSD should be considered to be for the purposes of sport categories.

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.

I've seen a lot of speculation that they might be 46,XY 5-ARD, which is what Castor Semenya is. It seems that people with this DSD are over-represented in female sport, because they look female at birth (no external male genitalia or underdeveloped male genitalia) but have internal male genitalia, undergo male puberty and have male advantages in sport.

But that's the problem: There's an awful lot of speculation and people from both sides use it to confirm what they have already decided they want to believe. Really, we just don't have enough information.

Well, we have the evidence of our own eyes, and definitive statements from the IBA, which many are pretending must be politically motivated pro-Russian lies. Even the IOC have implied there is a DSD involved.

What's really unhelpful though is the performative ignorance of journalists. They're just shrugging and saying 'no way to tell what's happening here', where normally the paucity of information wouldn't stop them: they'd be drawing diagrams for us, interviewing experts, and speculating wildly. Instead, tumbleweed.

Maybe they're squeamish about talking about someone's medical history (fair). But I think it's ideological. They can't bear to acknowledge that sex is a matter of biology, not opinion.

The thing about "differences or variances" of sexual development Vs "disorders" of sexual development is that (as far as I understand) this change in terminology was driven by those with DSD because of their experiences of living with DSD. Not everyone with a DSD will feel as though they are disordered and the language of disorder and disease is stigmatising, particularly if somebody doesn't actually experience medical hardship as a result of their difference and is just living life with a difference. Eg "So what I have a micropenis I'm fine with that", "I like my body the way it is", "the way my body developed is right for me" etc.

Conceding this language doesn't mean conceding that people with male advantages should compete in female sport.

I do not think we should move away from user-led, respectful and holistic approaches within medicine to DSD, to score points against gender ideology. It's possible to stick with the facts without being disrespectful to anyone.

Sorry, misread your post! Ignore!

This is an informative and useful discussion, thank you

Individuals with Swyer syndrome (XY) have a vagina, uterus and fallopian tubes. They do not have ovaries or testes and do not undergo puberty however they typically are treated with oestrogen to promote puberty (exactly the same way as a child who had to undergo an oophrectomy is). They will then menstruate normally, although remain infertile.

Individuals with de La Chapelle (XX) syndrome have normal male internal and external genitalia including testes. They are also infertile but do not need any hormonal support to undergo normal puberty which is why they are typically only diagnosed when being investigated for infertility as a PP's husband was.

This and the CAIS/Swyer thread have been really educational. I’ve ended up both more informed and more confused at the same time! 😂

But I do think part of the mess we seem to be in stems in part from our wish to Not Offend.

I noticed on the other thread that one of the reasons given for XY individuals without a functioning SRY gene to be classified as females is because with a uterus, fallopian tubes and external female sex characteristics it would be unfair to say that they were male and had to live as a man. As well as those characteristics being functionally identical (an XY woman may gestate a baby with much medical intervention), they have characteristics which are identical in appearance to those found in XX females.

Yes, there also seems to be the classification that female = no functioning SRY, even though male is usually the default for XY, because the absence of SRY cannot be considered a fault.

Well, why not?

Unless we are also saying that the term ‘male’ must have specific accompanying external and internal features and that a lack of those features = not male, then I really don’t see why a lack of SRY cannot be a disorder of males. A lack of other features still makes a male a male, so why not a lack of the specific maleness gene??

Yes, I can see on the logical path that if someone lacks the male gene they’re not a male (!), but equally an individual with XX chromosomes is never going to lack the SRY gene because they shouldn’t have it to begin with. The only one that can be missing it is XY.

And given that apparently Wt1 is the female equivalent of SRY, and that having SRY+mutatedWt1 (if I’ve understood that correctly) = female, I don’t see why presence of SRY should take precedence in determining if someone is male or female.

In many ways it seems actively regressive.

And no, I wouldn’t expect an individual with Swyer’s to ‘live as a man’, but equally I don’t see why it is wrong to suggest that they are a male with a DSD that gives them female characteristics.

On the social side that may be tough to hear, but then I imagine finding out that you possess a DSD is bad enough.

I’m coming to the conclusion, as others have mentioned, that the softening of language, from disorder to difference, with the intention to destigmatise the notion of having a DSD for those that suffer from them, is partly fuelling the mess we’re in with TRAs declaring sex is on a spectrum and there’s more than one way to be a woman, because the language we use to describe those conditions allows this extrapolation.

Does this help anyone?

I’m thinking no, not in any practical sense, in fact it may do the opposite.

If ‘female’ may be XX or it may be XY, then it’s easy to extend that to saying the definition of male or female is looking like one, and that plays right into the TRAs court.

I’m coming to the conclusion, as others have mentioned, that the softening of language, from disorder to difference, with the intention to destigmatise the notion of having a DSD for those that suffer from them, is partly fuelling the mess we’re in with TRAs declaring sex is on a spectrum and there’s more than one way to be a woman, because the language we use to describe those conditions allows this extrapolation.

Does this help anyone?

I’m thinking no, not in any practical sense, in fact it may do the opposite.

Oh, it helps the men who want to take over women's sports, women's shelters, women's jobs, women's healthcare. They'll appropriate anything to further that agenda.

Agree @Tinylittleunicorn.
I think it's important to not loose sight of the history of treatment of DSDs, with unnecessary surgeries (often destroying a person's capacity for sexual pleasure) and experiemental hormone regimens, the lies that were told to people about what surgeries they'd had in infancy, it really is a medical scandal and activists worked hard to make standard treatment more ethical for people with DSDs.

Challenge the flawed extrapolation, leave the terminology that people with DSDs use to describe themselves out of this. Leave people with DSDs out of this.

This is a poor / imprecise analogy but consider:

The theory of evolution via natural selection has historically been used to support the ideology of racial supremacy & eugenics. But to disagree vehemently with those ideologies does not require that evolution via natural selection should be discarded. To do so would only position those ideologically opposed to racial supremacy and eugenics as unscientific and ideologically driven. It is only necessary to reject the extrapolation.

Is it a disorder, or is it a difference?

A difference implies something normal and benign, such red or blonde hair.

A disorder implies something gone wrong that necessitates medical intervention or support.

If DSDs are differences, then they are just variations on a sliding scale of normal. This plays right to the TRAs who say that all chromosomal and hormonal combinations are equally legitimate ways to define a woman.

How does this help people with DSDs??

@UnderratedGenius I agree that people with DSDs should be able to describe themselves however they wish. Many still prefer to use the term ‘intersex’. Others go with DSD, some VSD. The main support organisation for people with DSDs in the U.K. uses I/VSD for intersex/variations of sexual development. I see it as much the same way how people who in the past would have been described as educationally subnormal (the ESN kids at my school had autism, ADHD, dyspraxia etc) now embrace the term neurodivergent.

@LaeralSilverhand I don’t mean we should restrict how people with DSDs describe themselves, because that’s a very emotional and personal thing, I’m thinking more about what terms are used in a purely non-emotive way.

The neurodivergent one is a good comparator. Yes, people with autism and dyslexia may describe themselves however they wish. Unfortunately I have seen the term neurodivergent used as a self-descriptor by people who do not have any condition that warrants it. It’s similar to people who claim that they are ‘a little bit OCD’ because they make the bed each morning! It’s ended up losing its true meaning and people seem less inclined to accept that true OCD can be a debilitating condition when they think it’s something everyone has a little bit of on a sliding scale.

By opening up the language are we not diluting the seriousness of the condition?

Caveat that I find this confusing and may have got the wrong end of the embriological stick here.
But, I actually think it's the opposite to that (i.e. @UnderratedGenius's quote).
Human development is ordered along a male (Wolffian) or female (Mullerian) pathway. It's actually really amazing that all sorts of hormonal and chromosomal differences still lead to one of these two developmental pathways being followed.
So there is a /difference/ or /variation/ in the karyotype or hormone profile or receptivity to hormones in some embryos, but, amazingly enough, embryonic development isn't disordered - order along one of two developmental pathways is followed.
(And there are different disorders that accompany different DSDs, e.g. severe CAH an infant can die from electrolyte imbalances - I'm not saying you can cure diseases by changing what they're called).
The annoying caveat is that this doesn't apply for ovotesticular syndromes but I think there are only 500 people alive with these syndromes?
(Had to edit because I initially said the opposite to what I intended - this is a VERY confusing topic).

@LaeralSilverhand very interesting points. Are you a biologist or have you just read up a lot on the topic.

A very nice and pleasant debate. Thank you all.

Much nicer than the angry messages on Facebook that I am not engaging with!

I’ve come across an interesting article relating to this discussion and I’m posting it on other relevant threads too:

‘3 Wire Sports has seen the test results and a June 5, 2023 IBA letter to the IOC that says tests of Khelif, one in New Delhi, a prior test in Istanbul at the 2022 world championships, “concluded the boxer’s DNA was that of a male consisting of XY chromosomes.”

For both Khelif and Lin, the New Delhi test – from, as IBA disclosed Monday, the independent Dr Lal PathLabs – consists of three pages. In part:
The first page provides, along with basic identifying information for each athlete and date and time of sample collection, result summary – “abnormal” – and interpretation – “chromosome analysis reveals Male karyotype.” The second page offers photographic representation of the 22 paired autosomes and then, for each athlete, further depicts an X and a Y chromosome. Page three makes plain that the lab is a “national reference lab” and, as well, accredited by CAP, the Northfield, Illinois-based College of American Pathologists, and certified by the ISO, the Swiss-based International Organization for Standardization.’

https://www.3wiresports.com/articles/2024/8/5/fa9lt6ypbwx5su3z20xxnfzgtao0gy

I think you are forgetting that there is a vast range of conditions which qualify as DSD, many of which don't result in any need for medical intervention or support (and actually, historically overzealous medical/surgical intervention to fix the "disorder" has been very harmful to people with DSD).

How does the terminology of difference Vs disorder benefit people with DSD? It is a positive reflection of the way that many people with DSD feel about their natural bodies that they were born with - that they are fine as they are and dont need to be surgically altered to conform with social expectations of binary sex. Individuals with some of these conditions will feel that their differences are normal and benign, not "wrong" or "disordered" and they clearly benefit from the terminology in use reflecting their feelings and experience instead of stigmatising them.

In no way does that imply that sex is in any meaningful way a spectrum for the vast majority of people with more typical sexual development and I really think you are giving that extrapolation far more credit than it is due.

I think people with DSDs are best positioned to decide which terminology benefits them, not anyone serving another agenda whether that agenda is TRA or GC.