Have I completely misunderstood GCSE biology...

[proximalhumerous]

...or is the purpose of spotting an anomaly not specifically to disregard it in order that it doesn't lead to an inaccurate conclusion?

If so, why is everyone fixating on DSDs as "proof" that sex is a spectrum, when the anomalous 1.7% (if indeed it is as high as that - from what I've read that figure is only achieved if you include conditions such as PCOS which have a tenuous claim at best to be one of the "intersex" variations) is clearly a set of results that don't fit. Because something has deviated from the norm. It's not like calculating the mean of a range of heights, FFS.

Please can someone more scientific than me explain what is going on here? Or is it simply that certain factions are so hell-bent on arguing that anyone with ladyfeels can be a woman they're happy to completely disregard any sort of science or logic in order to do so?

And the perennial ‘ohh, wow, ovotestis’ thing as if they are something to desire instead of giving people an elevated cancer risk.

I am looking forward to @Anteater1 's links of absolutely verified conclusive evident of humans producing both ova and sperm. Not to papers saying that it 'may' have happened, but fully verified evidence that it DID happen.

Better get comfortable 😆

What one is that please?

It's a journal article relating to ovotesticular syndrome, an exceptionally rare DSD, historically (and incorrectly) known as true hermaphroditism in which the individual has the potential to produce eggs or sperm but does not produce both.

I don't have the article to hand (someone else might be able to link?) but will have a look through old threads.

I see this all the time.

'Well, if you ever studied advanced biology you'd know you can be XXY, or XX and male, or...'

Yeah, we know. Nobody is denying that. But the fact that a very tiny minority of people have disorders that mess with their genetics doesn't mean that the entirety of the human sexual dimorphism isn't legitimate. You don't base the whole conclusion on the outliers, just like you don't write laws based solely on the desires of a tiny minority.

Since ‘sex’ (the binary reproductive system) comprises of multiple sex traits, with variable distributions individuals may possess different combinations of chromosome type, gamete size, hormone level, morphology and intrinsic inclinations, which do not always align in socially categorised female- and male-specific ways.

In other words, non normative variation isn't limited to DSD's they are just an example of a minority of outcomes.

The categorical error you are making is assuming inclinations that are downstream of biologically influenced personality traits don't have any implications on social construction of gender.

Howie, you should check this thread out

Dr Benjamin’s Fantasy World | Mumsnet https://share.google/N143QvETqeXbzJN0g

This is the grifter whose nonsense you're parroting.

There's nothing in that link that disputes the non controversial scientific facts of what my comment states.

Honestly, whenever I see one of How's posts on a thread, I hear the written equivalent of the teacher's voice from Peanuts

woaw, woh, woh, woaw, woaw

Nonsense that's plagiarised is still nonsense.

Even if someone did somehow, through a set of genetic mutations, develop fully functional female and male sex organs, it wouldn't demonstrate that the sex binary is invalid. Quite the opposite: it would just mean that this person embodies both halves of the sexual reproductive system, as hermaphrodites in other species also do.

This is so close to being a haiku!

This may be ignorance on my part, but I don't see how you could have an atypical combination of chromosomes and gametes, etc., without it being a DSD. I thought that was essentially the definition of a DSD.

Also I'm not finding your last paragraph very clear, but I don't see where I make any statements about gender or personality traits in my OP; I'm talking about biological sex.

In other words, non normative variation isn't limited to DSD's they are just an example of a minority of outcomes.

What non normative variation are you talking about - precisely?

People are stupid
People like to make things up
And love to shit stir.

Or just swap the second and third lines.

Howse does love the italics button.

I suspect it's intended to convey gravitas (no one needs that much emphasis). Or to draw attention away from the lack of factual content.

It comes across a bit sarcastic.

The whole 'sex is a spectrum' narrative is to illustrate not that the reproductive system isn't binary but sex characteristics aren't that have the capability to produce variation in outcomes. The context of this narrative was introduced as a justification for the biological existence of trans people that 's why I referenced gender & personality traits. DSD's being used here is to highlight how a minority of extreme deviations from the norms exist.

Morphological, chromosomal, gametal, hormonal traits & behavioural inclinations that deviate extremely from the norm.

Sex is not a spectrum at all.

it is reliably binary. It is the body variation within the two sexed that have wide variations.

I tried that first but preferred the way mine read.

It might be a desperate attempt to keep us awake while we scroll through the soporific posts. The occasional randomly italic poo poo, bold demonisation & dehumanisation or cap EG is bound to make us snap out of a pleasant snooze.
Thank fuck Howse hasn't yet mastered bigly letters.

Sorry but there's something about your writing style that makes it extremely unclear, at least to me. I think it's partly the absence of commas. I've read your first sentence about four times and can't make sense of it.

You're not alone in finding it unclear. It's a very poor writing style.