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?

One might be forgiven for thinking it's deliberately obfuscatory...

Ok, I'll break it down..
The reproductive system is binary in as in only large & small gametes.
Within the reproductive system process, sex traits (chromosomes, hormones) come into play that have the capability to produce variation from normative outcomes & ambiguity in presentation. Hence DSD's as well as other morphological & psychological variation.

I think Howse has read the thread praising Baileys and decided that was the way to go.

He's just saying that sex is binary, and people's hormone levels vary.

And is trying to make it sound complicated.

Communication not being Howse forte

It is good to see that we have agreement that people with differences of sex development are still either male or female based on their body’s formation.

And that extreme body modification that artificially changes parts of that body will not change the sex category of that person which remains as it was at birth.

No one is suggesting that reproductive sex category changes. Rather the variations in outcomes of the process can sometimes result in ambiguity in social distinctions.

There are a lot of TRAs who ‘identify’ as having a DSD. Some say they have a DSD because they identify as trans, or because they take cross sex hormones. Some just lie about having certain conditions.

I’ve seen one claim doctors didn’t know what sex she was despite the fact she was pregnant. Others claim to have been diagnosed in impossible ways (eg GP told them without having done any tests that would be necessary). Others change the DSD they claim to have been diagnosed with, often ones that there have only ever been a couple of cases identified. Others make up impossible sets of sex organs….

It’s not even his onete.

Which shows that the phrase ‘sex is a spectrum’ is meaningless. Sex is not a spectrum in human beings.

You can keep posting that phrase and we will simply keep clarifying it for readers. Maybe use more precise language and people will no longer be confused.

Sex can only be defined by gamete size given females can be humans, crocodiles, pumpkins, fish, spiders…. There is no other trait that is common to all female organisms.

Are we ready for what comes next?

Bets anyone ?

Sex is not a spectrum in human beings.

sex is not a spectrum for any organism. Even monoecious ones.

Not only common to all female organisms, common to all species that have sexual reproduction. That's why even chromosomes aren't helpful to define sex unless you specify "in humans".

I’m betting we’re gonna go with,…… scolding with a side of word salad?

Chromosomes determine sex in humans, not define it.

Edited because even that isn’t true; genes determine sex in humans regardless of if they get transposed to another chromosome.

Yes, that's what I'm saying, gametes define sex in all species that do sexual reproduction, not only in female humans, it's the only trait all sexually reproductive species have in common and the only one that matters when you define sex.

Oh stop lying. I specifically used the term "sex traits".

What sex trait do female humans and female pumpkins have in common?

I never said reproductive sex can be defined other than gametes. My point was simply sex traits can cause ambiguity in social distinctions. Big difference.

Never mixed up my male and female pumpkin flowers. Only the female ones developed fruit and only then after I hand pollinated them with pollen, which I could only find in a male flower. All the flowers varied slightly, mainly size wise, but the male flowers were all more alike each other. Ditto the female flowers. I didn't find any hermaphrodite flowers, though they may exist, and none of the flowers changed sex that I noticed.

You recognise that sex is immutable (you are labelling it ‘reproductive sex’), which is a great starting point from which to move debate on to why some males (as defined by reproductive sex type) should be included in provision for females (as defined by reproductive sex type).

Your points about social distinctions are sociological in nature, rather than biological. This thread is about biology.

sex is only to do with reproduction so ‘reproductive’ is unnecessary, it is just sex.

Sex is reproductive.

Either mention of species which are not human or a long list of stereotypes relating to 'sex traits' is my bet.