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?

Who do you think I should take more notice of in relation to human sex. Some random poster on the Internet spouting nonsense or the UKs leading expert on human sex and reproduction

Cappuccino etc.....i suggest reading ALL the referred to research as noted with the "auto fertilisation ..." Paper.

Span.....I specifically said the opposite to your assertion.

In any event, if you could find JUST ONE medical oversight body that says that humans are a strict binary....JUST ONE.....please tell me what that organisation is and where it states as such.

(The accepted global medical position is that humans are NOT a strict binary, as evidenced by the 240,000,000 people alive today with intersex traits or incongruence)

FFS Stop with this "intersex" nonsense. Intersex does not exist. Everyone is either male or female while a tiny proportion have a Disorder of Sexual Development (DSD) they either have a male DSD or a female DSD.

Yes, you made it clear that medically you believe sex is a mix and match and administratively you want three options; man, woman and neither, that people can select themselves. Like the German system that is already causing multiple problems within its first year.

As your proposal is not to the benefit of women and women also have rights and protections, I am proposing a classification based on the absence or presence of the sry-gen with maybe an option to change depending if a present sry-gen is active or not. That covers everybody very neatly.
Would you support that as you find the sex classification too murky? If not, why not?

Span .....you are just repeating the same nonsense.
AFTER EVERY SINGLE PERMISSIBLE MEDICAL TEST... sometimes medics just cannot tell what "sex" a child is.
And the UK system STILL requires the arbitrary ticking of a box.

Those are the facts, whether you like them or not.

Rather than repeating myself and nauseum, I recommend reading about 46xx46xy ovitesticular conditions, the SRY Gene, intersex registration and a basic introduction to ACTUAL biology.

Bye.

I did have a look at the references, quickly admittedly.
It would be helpful if you could directly link or reference or quote the particular paper/s you mean, please, and I’ll have an in-depth read (if I can access them). Thank you.

And Richard Dawkins, who has described sex as "one of the few binaries we have".

Two eminent scientists Vs one random with a cause and ChatGPT.

Who to believe, who to believe...

Sanluca.....presence of the SRY Gene is not definitive of sex. It may well be indicative if a DSD.
If you want to assert that a woman with a DSD is not a woman, that's your own lookout. Medical science doesn't agree.

Since you like Wikipedia here is some background information about Prof Winston who says there are only two sexes, human beings can't change sex and sex is determined by the presence of the SRY gene plus functional testosterone receptors.

Tell me where is his wrong in his assertions and state your qualifications and expertise so that I can work out whether i should take your word over his

Prof Robert Winston is a fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, an honorary fellow[7] of the Royal Academy of Engineering,[7] a fellow of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and of the Royal College of Physicians of London, and an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, and the Royal Society of Biology. He holds honorary doctorates from twenty-three universities,[8] is a trustee of the UK Stem Cell Foundation, and a patron of the Liggins Institute, University of Auckland, New Zealand.

Also, the hypothetical situation of self fertilisation in humans is based on the idea of a chimera: a fusion of two zygotes with an ovary on one side and testes on the other. The key word here is hyopthetical. It has never occured.

Tea ....I haven't asked you to believe anything . I've suggest you actually read something, including all the research which proves that all claims about ONLY or NEVER when it comes to "sex" are wrong.
I've even provided links to relevant research via the Journal of Neonatal and Fetal Medicine.

Ps....Dawkins studied zoology ....not human biology

I know it is not the definition currently of sex but you disagree with the current definition so I am proposing another one. Would you support this and if not, what is your proposal for a classification that would protect those currently known as female?

Most cases of ovotesticular syndrome aren’t the result of chimerism.

Thank you for linking the study. Yes, I have seen it before. Although, I had forgotten about the reference to the birth of Jesus.... Do you think this paper is credible?

You talk about footnotes 19-24, did you have access to all of those papers, or just the abstract or a very short version of the abstract?

The presence of streak testes/ovaries or immature testicular/ovary tissue does not interrupt the claim that humans can be categorised by a team reviewing that body and determining which reproductive function that body has been formed to do. We know there are people in the world who have streak gonads of one sex while having a working gonad of the opposite sex.

My question to you was:

To link up "absolutely verified conclusive evident of humans producing both ova and sperm. Not to papers saying that it 'may' have happened, but fully verified evidence that it DID happen."

I don't believe that you have done that, or that I am looking at a completely different paper .

These are the footnotes you refer to.

19 - this paper is about a woman who had one working ovary and had testicular tissue that was not viable and productive. She had menstruated as normal but had been identified at birth that there was a variation in her reproductive system. She does not disprove the sex binary.

20 - do you have access to this one? I can only find the abstract. Did this person have any sign of having a working teste or not? Considering she had 11 pregnancies, I would assume that would be a no.

21 - this one is also just a short abstract. This was a male person with ovarian tissue in his testicle. Was it working? Or was it simply present?

22 - Do you have access to 1982 paper where the one person in this paper that supposedly had ovulated while also then producing sperm? Considering the current knowledge and technology, I wonder if this paper would have passed verification. And without access to the full paper, how do you even know what was written about? How was this verified?

23 - Another without access. Yet, it does not say anything about those patients studied producing both ova and sperm in the abstract.

24 - Another without access. Yet, it does not say anything about those patients studied producing both ova and sperm in the abstract.

I really was "looking forward to Anteater1 's links of absolutely verified conclusive evidence of humans producing both ova and sperm. Not to papers saying that it 'may' have happened, but fully verified evidence that it DID happen."

What has been posted doesn't seem to be confirming with verified and conclusive evidence of humans producing both ova and sperm.

Span....you almost proved exactly what I said, by quoting ".....PLUS .....FUNCTIONAL hormone receptors".
The gene by itself is NOT determinative.

I would gently remind you that individual opinions within medicine differ. It does not mean that one individual is correct.
That's why I asked you to provide JUST ONE medical oversight body that still suggests humans are a strict binary.

Strict Binary is NOT the accepted position, as evidenced by 240,000,000 people alive today .

It's up to you to read. I shall not be replying further to you.

Thanks @Helleofabore. I agree. If there has anything been missed, @Anteater1, can you please point it out?

Pretty......That's NOT supported in medical science.

What are your Medical or scientific qualifications?

I never said that the SRY gene alone determined sex but you are claiming that it's impossible to determine sex in some cases - that's not correct

Helleo....if you can't directly access, I suggest visiting your local university library who will help you gain access AND to updated papers

Span.....it really would help to read posts properly.

Which part do you think I misread?

Which post provides the evidence of more than two sexes?

we ALL start off in the biological default as 'female'.

no, we all develop along a male or female pathway starting from an undifferentiated embryo. Females aren’t just males without a penis.

One of them is a streak, not a working gonad. Always.

Come on, Anteater1, engage with the questions. Instead of saying read this, read that, go to your library, you haven't read it properly.

Just cut and paste the relevant bits. It can't be that hard.

if you want people to understand your arguments, try communicating with them