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?

It will be usual posts about ‘traits’ and what this means, which will result with some misrepresented dictionary definitions.

🤣

Well we'll let you get on with writing a list of facilities based on social distinctions.

Frocks pee here? With a subsection of whether it's Paisley print, or gingham?

‘Super feminine looking peeps over this way’ you mean Datun?

non feminine looking people use this one. And so on?

I'd be quite interested in reading about pumpkin ambiguous sex traits. Sneakily thickening their stems maybe.

If I grow some next year, I'll try sticking a 'tache on one or two. See what happens.

Will it involve the phrase “categorical error’ again, Howse loves that one. He’s not a super fan of strikeout though, which given his accuracy rate is ironic

Norman architecture?

I'm here for the castles!

And the age old question, what if you are wearing a kilt?

Or a Demis type Kaftan!

Now I'm wondering about monks. Some of whom wear trousers under their habits, particularly in winter.

Nah it'll all be based on boob size. You know, the 'sex trait', that determines status.

Howse and Hayton can socially distinction themselves senseless.

Was Hayton's take that breast size is linked to social power or something nuts like that?

And, what is it, 'case closed'??

Like a 1950s B movie.

Or was it 'I rest my case'. 😁

Reminds me of my tweenies patiently explaining why their bedtime needs to be later.

Social distinction. The bigger the boob, the higher the status.

Honestly. You do wonder how someone manages to reach adulthood, let alone middle age, with their nose still stuck to the centrefold

Thanks. I did think about Googling it but decided that it would be a very bad idea and would produce search results of the 'my eyes, my eyes!!' variety!

Higher status amongst men or amongst women?

I have a generous embonpoint. Where's my title?

Because norkage equals peerage, n'est-ce pas?

both

Hayton, I believe, said women recognised the hierarchy of boobs too.

Not at an individual level though, some people don’t produce gametes.

Even if they don't, they have a ststem
set up to produce one or other gamete. You already know this however.

It comes down to whether a body is formed around the production of one type of gamete or the other, and it is regardless of whether the body has ever, does or will produce those gametes.

Not always. Those with Swyer syndrome? I’d say they were women but no gametes, no ovaries, XY.

I just think sweeping statements should be resisted when it comes to discussions around biology like the present one we’re having. They work at a population level but (rarely) not always at an individual level.

Okay, so that’s what pp should have said maybe? Body type is the important thing?
Not that gametes define sex?

I think we need to look at a wide range of things personally… chromosomes, genes, hormones, body type, sex organs, gametes. Usually they all ‘match’, occasionally not though.