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?

If their reproductive systems are built around producing eggs they are women. If their reproductive systems are based around producing sperm, they are men.

No it's perfectly correct to say that what gamete the body is built around producing is what determines your sex.

The other factors you mention are, if not aligned, indicative of disorders.

What you're talking about are people with disorders/differences of sexual development or DSDs.

If anyone were ever allowed to undertake research on the subject, I guarantee that only a very, very tiny percentage of people who have adopted trans identities would be found to have a DSD.

Even trans activists themselves emphasise their view that "transness" is a feeling, a belief, a perception, a thing entirely of the mind, not the body.

What about when sex is determined by temperature of incubation of eggs like Crocodiles?

So using your criteria (chromosomes, genes, hormones, body type, sex organs, gametes) what definition do you use that encompasses both me and a female pumpkin plant?

How is my body type similar to that of a female pumpkin?

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?

^^This.

Plus the very basic scientific and mathematical fact that just because something is not strictly binary, does not therefore mean it is a spectrum.

Even if you include the chromosome variations of DSDs as actual sexes (which is a fallacy in itself, but let’s pretend for a moment), something with around 16 possible discrete variables is not a spectrum.

just because something is not strictly binary

Sex is strictly binary

You’re missing my point — even if you thought sex was not binary, binary and spectrum are not the only possible arrangements of any kind of variable.

It’s not like “binary” and “spectrum” are the only two mathematical modes of being in existence, and if something is not the one, it must therefore be the other. Sets of more than two discrete variables exist!

Categorised by which gamete the body has been formed to produce, regardless of the production status. So,it is still about which gamete but it looks at a range of aspects to make that categorisation.

And just for clarification that doesn’t include ‘traits’ as per personality aspects as some people have in the past insisted be included in the categorisation.

Sex is defined by the gametes our bodies are set out to produce even if they don’t. Chromosomes etc help determine how this happens. Determine is not define.

Yes, I am talking about DSDs, not trans.

Yes, I agree. That’s my point, you need to look at a range of aspects. Again. talking re DSDs, not about trans.

So what is the range of aspects that I have that are similar to a female pumpkin plant? You still haven’t answered.

I’m talking about humans, not pumpkins? Not sure why you’re talking about pumpkins tbh.

sex is not a uniquely human thing though and biology deals with all organisms. The whole point of the definition of sex is that it is consistent across all organisms. There is nothing special about humans in this regard. So if you are saying sex is not defined by gamete type then your definition must include pumpkin plants, spiders and crocodiles.

Sure. But the point is always gamete type. That is the definitive factor.

Saying sex is defined by the presence of eg breasts is a bit like saying chocolate bars are defined by the presence of peanuts.

Hows et al may find this useful to read.

In the Archives of Sexual Behavior, Colin Wright explains why there are only two sexes, and debunks claims that the sexes are more numerous than that or form a spectrum.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-025-03348-3?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

It's why we can say that clown fish can change sex and that male seahorses give birth and holly bushes are male or female and snails are hermaphrodites - because the definition is consistent across organisms and relates to gametes.

Going back to the OP, DSDs are a rare anomaly that can make sex difficult to determine in some individuals, but the existence of Swyers doesn't change how we define male and female. All the secondary characteristics that you might use to determine sex are indicative of a particular sex, but when they don't align with sex as determined by gamete production, that is indicative of a disorder, and most likely infertility, not of a new kind of sex.

It is obviously difficult and traumatic to have a DSD, but it's also difficult and traumatic (if more common) to grow an entire human being in your body and give birth, so it is important that we have accurate words for sex.

I know the thread has moved on, but in answer, my recollection is that it was amongst women.

He seemed to imagine that the size of one's breasts indicated your social hierarchy amongst your peers.

It stemmed from a conversation about why he thought breasts signalled his sex (his new fake breasts and pretend sex in this case). When women disagreed and said it signalled nutrition for babies.

And then it became quite obvious that he thought that not just having breasts, but having big breasts determined where you were on the female social hierarchy.

It's like all these men watching porn, fondly imagining that what they find arousing, must translate to huge status amongst women.

Because, you know why wouldn't it, duh.

Is it defined as such in the medical and scientific literature in the case of DSDs? Not being goady, genuine question.
I only see it defined as such on MN threads. In general it’s fine at a population level, but sometimes not at an individual level.

Presumably he thinks small bosomed fashion models are employed as an act of charity.

Gamete size is the basic biological definition of sex.

Re DSDs Prof Robert Winston gives the determination of sex being SRY gene plus functional androgen receptors is male and everyone else is female. Not sure if that applies to the very rare DSDs but it applies to the majority of DSDs

IKR? Never wondered about catwalk models, mannequins or, well almost every advert aimed at women.

Just porn

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

The OP seemed concerned about whether some people determined sex on "lady feels" & were corrupting the definition to do so. I simply explained the biological process involved & how that influenced this societal determination which invariably includes a commentary on social construction.