What about intersex people?

[tecbrowidow]

Hi mumsnetters, I can see a lot of posts in support of the UK court judgement ruling that the definition of woman is based in biology. I'm not in favour of this ruling because, aside from the trans issue, it places intersex people in an impossible position. For example those who are born with a female body and XY chromosomes (a rare condition which affects thousands of people in the UK). Biological sex is quite complicated, and I think the law should reflect that reality. I'm curious what other people think on this as I don't see the intersex angle being discussed in the media.

Maybe you could start by not using the outdated and offensive term of intersex and stop othering people with Differences of Sexual Development (DSDs) by implying that they are neither male or female?

Most DSD are sex specific, arent they?

DSD have occurred for as long as humans have existed, and it wasn't an issue when female only spaces and opportunities were introduced.

The only reason female only spaces and opportunities are seen as impossible concepts is because men are pretending to be women. If these men didnt exist, no one would see dsd as a problem.

What about them?

Trans people do not have DSD. I’m sure they have no desire to be pulled in to this argument.

Biological sex is not complicated for the overwhelmingly vast majority of human beings. You can’t decide law with whataboutery.

Just because something is, rarely, complicated doesn't mean it isn't a real and relevant thing.

People with DSDs will know what their specific condition is, and what sex they are. The law is not about people with DSDs. It's about people who absolutely do not have any kind of DSD but wish to claim to be the opposite sex.

You’re new here aren’t you.

@tecbrowidow it’s a mistake to say anyone is “in-between sexes” – that’s not how biology works. Everyone is ALWAYS either male or female, even people with DSDs (which is the proper medical term, not “intersex”). Conditions like AIS don’t create a third sex – they’re variations that still occur within the male/female binary.

The EHRC Interim Guidance reflects this reality. It’s vital for law and policy to be based on clear, biological definitions – not feelings or edge cases that don’t actually blur the binary. Respect and compassion are essential, but so is clarity.

All DSDs affect either males or females, and have absolutely nothing to do with trans people or whether men should be in women’s spaces (no!).

Biological sex is not complicated. There is male and there is female.

Humans have two legs, just because some are born with one or none, we don't start saying it's complicated and people refuse to answer questions such as "how many legs does a human have?".

Looks like it!

What toilets do you think people with a DSD used two weeks ago? Whatever the answer is, that’s the toilet they can continue to use.

Unless there was a paragraph in the judgement somewhere that we’ve all missed that mentioned people with one of these very specific conditions? Was there OP?

"Legs are a spectrum!"

People with DSDs have explicitly asked not to be used as political strategies, thought experiments, rhetorical devices, gotchas or shields by anyone.

‘I'm not in favour of this ruling because, aside from the trans issue’

Can you explain what you mean here please?

Btw, you don’t get to be ‘in favour’ of the ruling, it’s the law, how you feel about it is irrelevant.

‘Biological sex is quite complicated, and I think the law should reflect that reality’

No it isn’t and it already does. There are two sexes, this cannot be changed as it’s biologically impossible to change your sex. Please leave people with DSD’s out of this, stop using them to further the trans agenda.

There are a minuscule number people where their sex cannot be determined at birth, most midwives will never see one, we’re literally talking about maybe one born per year in the UK, we can’t make law for a handful of people.

Biological sex categories are very, very straightforward. They define reproductive role, regardless of species. Big gametes female, small gametes male. This is how we define when a clown fish changes sex.

I think what you mean is that a very small number of people have a specific disorder of sexual development which means that their secondary sexual characteristics haven't followed the typical developmental route, e.g. because they are completely insensitive to androgens chromosomes they are phenotypically female and have not gone through male puberty, despite having XY chromosomes.

It is likely that somebody with a condition like CAIS would be registered as female at birth.

The SC ruling dealt with GRCs, and this legislation would only affect them if they also have a GRC.

If you think people with conditions like CAIS need specific legislation, that case is not made by grouping them with people whose sex category is completely clear.

Trans people are no more likely that anyone else in the population to have a DSD - we know this because they used to routinely test people with gender/sex dysphoria because it was assumed that this might be a cause, and then stopped because it wasn't.

People with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, Swyer Syndrome or De La Chapelle Syndrome aren't a gotcha and they will continue to live their lives as they always have.

What about them?

Rats - edit fail - because they are completely insensitive to androgens chromosomes they are phenotypically female

I suggest you read this. It explains how everyone still has a biological sex - even if things are not entirely clear at birth, there are 42 days in which to carry out the necessary rests before the birth is registered. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/differences-in-sex-development/

tecbrowidow

People's sex is not simply a matter of chromosomes only. But it is also not has complicated as you seem to think.

With modern technology all humans can be categorised reliably into either male or female sex categories based on the reproductive role that their body has been formed around.

Can you outline your specific concern about people with disorders of sex development @tecbrowidow in relation to the acknowledgement of biological sex in the Equality Act? It’s a bit vague.

My first deletion.

My point stands - unreasonable expectations of males to enter female spaces has led to people with DSDs being dragged into a debate they were never part of.

Fin.

How is biological sex quite complicated, please?

OP, what is your point in terms of how those with DSD may be affected by the recent ruling?

Are you the individual with a DSD who keeps posting?