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?

This reminds me of Colin Wright highlighting a recent paper. He wrote of it:

https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/data-activism-and-the-death-of-truth

'The paper presents this approach as a “trans data epistemology,” supposedly a new “way of knowing” based on “trans experiences.” The authors argue that “mainstream Western epistemology”—the normal way of doing science—has historically favored the perspectives of the dominant group—white, cisgender, heterosexual men.” Because there’s “no universal knowledge system,” they claim, “epistemologies based solely on the perspectives of one group are necessarily limited and incomplete.” Every group must therefore have its own truth, and the truth according to marginalized groups trumps all others.

In other words, they believe truth itself depends on identity. Instead of minimizing bias, as real scientists strive to do, these authors maximize it. From that premise they outline the “four pillars of a trans data epistemology”:

Categories are provisional and productive

1. Data can be a tool of community care
2. Community well-being is more important than “accurate” data
3. Data makes us visible to institutions.'

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.

Yes, some men get fixated on the couple of seconds where their willies have relevance and inflate the importance of that out of all proportion, while others get very opinionated about what happens in the ‘more to it’ phase of reproduction, despite their lack of contribution to it. Either way these weirdos men get upset because the objects of their obsession, whether woman as sex object or woman as gestator, is a whole other human being with a mind of her own.

Using a back of an envelope calculation to calculate the impact of my reproductive system on my life, so far:

Time spent pregnant and breastfeeding = 3+ years?
Time on pill or IUD = 2 + decades?
Time spent dealing with periods = several days a month for many decades
Time spent dealing with reproduction related health conditions = difficult to estimate but I'm going to say 2 years

Time spent having sex = ?

But if you spent half an hour 3 times a week, that would be 78 hours a year, and if you multiply that by 60 years it is 4680 hours or 195 days. Even if it's an hour 6 times a week for 70 years it's still only 2 and a half years. But I suppose for men that generously estimated 2 and a half years is the only time they are practically involved in the reproductive process, and somebody else is taking care of contraception, and they may never know whether they have a child. Maybe it is all very abstract to them?

It is a bonkers article. Having read it, and knowing the dude is a lecturing neurologist, I can see where there might be a very confused cohort of recent graduate neurologists out there.

And yet, we were told that it might educate us about the nature of human sex classification. Bonkers.

There seems to have been a few comments in relation to my explaining that some men born 46XX46XY can and do give birth.
One post requested a link.... Well, always happy to help..
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313454996_Potential_autofertility_in_true_hermaphrodites

In the article, although it is considering auto fertility, there are very handy tables of known and studied cases

All the research listed in pages 6+7 address various individual cases and processes including spermatogenesis in those who have given birth.
So, that is quite a body of work from most of the leading research clinicians in the field, as published in the Journal of Neonatal and Fetal Medicine in 2017 and regularly cited today (although some of the individual research has been updated with additional examples).
If anyone only has a little time to consider research, perhaps those listed in footnotes 19-24 will be of most assistance.

" In the literature, pregnancy cases that developed through self-fertilization were not reported in humans. However, self-fertilization was detected in mammals."
From the linked abstract, a claim that is repeated several times throughout the article.

I've also noticed a few people including 'Brainworm' referring to notions such as immutability of biological things or sex .

The big problem with all these notions is that the terms used in the first place don't have a biological basis.

The words 'male, female, man, woman' all predate ANY understanding of biology by thousands of years. Humanity used these words when it was no more scientific than putting a label on someone met based upon the clothes they were wearing at the time.

To be "immutable" something has to be capable of determination in the first place. The words we use have no single determinant.
Sex is NOT determined by any single thing that we can say 'every person who is female dies or has.....x'. That concept just doesn't exist.
We cannot determine a person's sex by
ANY particular organ, or gamet production, or appearance,not pregnancy, or any other standard.
There are ALWAYS repeating natural variations that disprove EVERY attempt to find a determinant.

Of course that is precisely why medical science does not consider human biological sex to be a strict binary, and hasn't done for years.

We are not meant to actually read the linked articles. We are meant to take their claims about them at face value.

Dammit, am I doing this sciency thing wrong?

Humanity used these words when it was no more scientific than putting a label on someone met based upon the clothes they were wearing at the time.

You actually think this? This is the most amusing claptrap. The idea that ancient people thought biological sex was all about the clothes people were wearing is one of the daftest ideas I’ve ever heard 🤣

Your notions here are charmingly naïve, but a tissue of entirely wishful nonsense. The terms man and woman pre-date any biology? These people bred animals for domestication and farmed plants for food. They had no idea about biological sex? Do you know how silly you sound?

But that article clearly states humans can’t impregnate themselves. So your “evidence” completely contradicts your claim. I’m sure you’ll be able to point to lots of papers showing humans have changed sex won’t you? I don’t mean sex characteristics such as breasts. I mean full, to the DNA changing sex. I mean,that would be a huge discovery and published widely.
I hope you’re not trying to co-opt those with VSD into your “sex is not binary”argument. The fact they have VSD show thst sex is indeed a binary. Otherwise how would they know they have a VSD.
Looking forward to your reply.

OFFS, it's always biology people spout this shit about. There've been planets and suns and entire galaxies before we made up words for them but still most sane people don't claim that means we can't know and make statements about these things.

In the literature, pregnancy cases that developed through self-fertilization were not reported in humans.

As we approach Christmas, should we not be remembering St Matthew and St Luke and the Virgin Birth?

God this is just so illiterate I can't even.

If this is what our current education system is teaching, then we need to burn it down and start again.

Could I suggest READING my post before commenting.
I said the use of words 'male, female....etc' predate ANY understanding of biology.

The words 'male, female etc' do not have any fixed biological meaning.

As a brain surgeon what they mean and you'll get one answer. An endocrinologist will say something completely different. A fertility clinician will have a different understanding to a geneticist.
The words we use DO NOT HAVE biological meaning.

Don’t be silly.

Yes, of course people who understand human biology always point out why assertions about what something is or isn't, are very often wrong.

What definitions of male and female will a brain surgeon give you versus an endocrinologist?

Typo above. "Ask a brain surgeon....."

Your gotcha sophistry might draw gasps at your cleverness on Reddit, but here we understand what human reproduction consists of.

No, it's not illiterate.
It may be complex, but that's not the same thing at all.

As for what the standard of education is ....even at GCSE level biology, the biological facts of DSDs and variations of human development is part of the syllabus - because those are the known medical facts.

Medical understanding develops continuously and education always plays catch up.
Unfortunately there are lots of people with lots of catching up to do.

Recognition of males and females IS biology. And they do have fixed biological meanings.

You remind me of this:

Yes, we know what DSDs are. They don’t alter the existence of two human sexes.

So educate us ...

What definitions of male and female will a brain surgeon give you versus an endocrinologist?

Hahahahahaha no. Really. Just no. From the beginning of humanity, people knew it took one of each kind of human to have a baby. Or do you think they just fumbled around blindly? Did your mum not explain this to you? So if they didn’t understand biology, how did they know who was male and who was female? Are we getting to the “sex is all so wibbly wobbly and complicated” part again? I am sure we heard that exact same argument recently from another poster. They got their arse handed to them by the fabulous women on here.