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?

Some people think that being female is just a trait. The original Guess Who game had just 5 women, and Hasbro justified this on the basis that

"Guess Who? is a guessing game based on a numerical equation. If you take a look at the characters in the game, you will notice that there are five of any given characteristics. The idea of the game is, that by process of elimination, you narrow down who it isn’t, thus determining who it is. The game is not weighted in favour of any particular character, male or female. Another aspect of the game is to draw attention away from using gender or ethnicity as the focal point, and to concentrate on those things that we all have in common, rather than focus on our differences."

So the standard is 'male' and being female is like wearing a hat.

See also the Smurfs.

However, an obvious problem with adopting this new system would be that e.g. in NHS Fife and Darlington, everyone knew the sex of the trans identifying males and continued be treat them as men. Perhaps low status men who deserved sympathy from women, but still fundamentally men.

That really illustrates the misogyny of the whole thing. It looks like some hideous sexism from the last century because that is what it is.

Ah! The promised bimodal sex model with each axis labelled. I did my nails! I also had my hair cut, about halved the length. Don't know what that did re. me being a woman. If this storied bimodal sex model with each axis labelled is ever forthcoming perhaps I'll be able to do a calculation.

But alas, the statement got twisted around to not meaning what it said initially. Hence I included the original. Almost like a ‘retreat’… but we won’t mention mottes and bailies.

What on earth are you babbling about?

The "sex traits" I am referring to is a biological scientific term occurring as a result of the reproductive process that comprises of multiple traits, with variable distributions.IE Individuals may possess different combinations of chromosome type, gamete size, hormone level, morphological and psychological expressions.

The outcomes from this process usually fall within a normative range but in a small minority of cases they don't which makes their classification ambiguous socially AND scientifically.

Here's an informative link that might help.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-of-biological-sex/

Remarkable, isn’t it?

More recently than that unfortunately! According to Wikipedia, they didn't update the game until 2018.

The reasoning is that if you can eliminate half of the board by guessing sex, that makes the game less of a challenge.

The answer would be to create the same game, but perhaps use animals, not people, but I suppose none of this occurred to anyone when the game was introduced in 1979

So back to people with rare disorders that makes sex difficult to determine in a very small number of individuals, but nothing to do with how we define sex.

Really this all boils down to men demanding we call them women because they say so. Which, if anything, is an example of very masculine behaviour in humans.

This really comes down to men finding any bit of leverage or tactic that they can to convince women and girls that they should be allowed to access their single sex provisions and that women and girls have to change how they use those provisions to accommodate those men as well.

It also really comes down to finding any bit of leverage to justify significant language changes that will support their efforts of convincing female people and justifying the men's demands.

It is male entitlement.

It is male entitlement.

One might almost say it's their social experience of their sex?

Biologists have worked with the definition of sex being based on the gametes an organism produces for a very long time, it's really not the remit of random blokes on the internet to change this.

Indeed. If we include behaviour as ‘sex traits’ as has been suggested then the behaviour of men who identify as women is a very definitely male.

This point is a little gem. These men are regressive in the extreme. They lack the empathy, social skills and insight that we try to ensure our children develop. Their tactics are those of the old Victorians - shoring up their male power by ensuring that women comply with male demands.
Unable to communicate on an equal level, they resort to incoherent verbiage, sneering intimidation and demands for complete compliance with their flat earth beliefs "or else". They see it as their mission to "educate" women and children in their niche demands. The sexual abuse of women and children was a major issue in Victorian times - promoted by endless diatribes about the evils of women.

lol.

so you want toilets labelled women, including those with DSDs and people wearing frocks and knitting.

Hmm, I wonder which one you will don.

There was no babble in my post. It was clear and precise. It states that within the sex category there are 2 sexes.

If you want to bring in a different classification system that draws upon sex traits and not reproductive function, then you need to use different labels to ‘sex’, ‘male’, ‘female’, ‘woman’, ‘girl’, ‘man’, ‘boy’ - they already are clearly defined and in use to denote reproductive role.

Unless you have significant learning disabilities, people understand who needs to wear a condom when practicing safe sex. Over 90% of the population are fertile at one stage in their lives and fertility issue do no relate to uncertainty as to whether they would impregnate the female or gestate the embryo/ fetus.

I do not believe that you do not understand that above. I accept that you object to society organising itself around these categories, but it is nonsense to suggest it is too complex to do so.

I don’t believe you are engaging in good faith.

I haven't seen your body! The female pumpkin and I both have ovaries, which produce the large type of gametes. I don't grow mine in a flower, mainly because I'm not a plant. Far less relevantly, the pumpkin's main body shape is not dissimilar to mine 🎃

More of a squash than a pumpkin in shape. Though of course the pumpkin is only the fruit of the plant.

Arguably they're not 'sex traits', they're just 'traits'. Certainly the ones that might be clearly apparent. As which sex does and wears what varies through time, culture and fashion. Women would be more likely to wear turbans in the 1930-40s in the West but obviously worn by men in the Punjab.

The link that was posted for Brianworm this morning is also on archive.

https://archive.is/LN6xf#selection-1601.0-1601.331

It is remarkable that a 'clinical neurologist' makes the claims that he does in this article. He is all about 'sex is bimodal' without ever providing the labels for the axis.

For a start, he also makes this claim:

"there are XY females who are chromosomal males but develop mostly or entirely female because of androgen insensitivity."

When the reality is that we already know that some people don't fit a strict 'chromosomal' category. That doesn't make them 'mostly' one sex! FFS.

This dude lectures at Hale AND is apparently a 'skeptic'.

Then it goes into, as expected:

First we need to consider all the traits relevant to sex that vary along this bimodal distribution. The language and concepts for these traits have been evolving too, but here is a current generally accepted scheme for organizing these traits:

• Genetic sex
• Morphological sex, which includes reproductive organs, external genitalia, gametes and secondary morphological sexual characteristics (sometimes these and genetic sex are referred to collectively as biological sex, but this is problematic for reasons I will go over)
• Sexual orientation (sexual attraction)
• Gender identity (how one understands and feels about their own gender)
• Gender expression (how one expresses their gender to the world)

He also quotes the misinformation that is 1.7% of people are "intersex" as being an accurate reference.

He then conflates 'having sex' with the human sex categories, yet he then describes categorising human sex categories being about reproduction as being 'reductionist'.

"The argument often goes that sex is only about reproduction, and since gametes are binary, sex in total is binary. This is incredibly reductionist, and misses the fact that traits often simultaneously serve multiple evolutionary ends. Sex, for example, is also about bonding, social relationships, power, and dominance. Think about this – what percentage of the time that humans have sex is the express purpose reproduction? How many people have no desire to ever have children, but still have an active sex life? Can there be romance without sex? Why are there so many aspects of sex that are not strictly reproductive?"

Apparently now, sexual orientation is relevant to sex categorisation and whether sex is binary. Partly because of arousal patterns (well, no shit - penises and clitorises react differently to arousal)

"One brain feature that gets a lot of attention, however, is sexual orientation. I know I am framing this with a conclusion that some people contest, that sexual orientation is essentially determined by brain development, but that is the current consensus of scientific evidence and opinion. People are generally born with their sexual orientation, even if it is not fully realized until they go through puberty. In fact, I would consider sexual orientation to be part of biological sex (which is why I divided up sexuality as I did above)".

and

"If, then (as seems clear), sexual orientation is a brain function largely determined by genes, hormones, receptor sensitivity, and other epigenetic factors all affecting brain development and physiology, then it’s reasonable to consider sexual orientation an aspect of biological sex also."

I am sure that this will be a surprise to any lesbians reading this. Apparently, being a lesbian will influence what sex category you belong to.

What a remarkable article.

I don't know about -phobic, but that seems excessively anti homosexuality, considering it some kind of aberration rather than a normal and usual expression of human sexual attraction..

The article gives the impression that he did a bit of googling then made up the rest.

"Sex, for example, is also about bonding, social relationships, power, and dominance. Think about this – what percentage of the time that humans have sex is the express purpose reproduction?"

To be fair, men's contribution to reproduction is pretty much limited to sex. Maybe he just can'f fathom that there is more to it.

What percentage of pre-menopausal women not having sex for reproductive purposes are having to worry about the reproductive purpose of sex every time they have sex?

Exactly. It's quite a male thing to be able to detach sex from pregnancy.