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?

So, you are confirming that YOU have read these or not? If you have access, surely you can cut and paste appropriate sections that confirm support that there has been conclusive and fully verified evidence that someone has produced sperm AND ova?

Considering you just pointed us to footnotes 19-24, and that in that list was clearly female people who had streak testes, I am questioning whether you really have read all those papers and that you are now attempting to distract by telling us we have to go and find a university library to access what you confidently stated was verified fact.

Clearly the SRY gene is not the definition of sex as many organisms do not have it but still are either male or female. You are still completely ignoring the fact that sex is a stable biological concept that is not restricted to humans, mammals or even animals.

Capp & helleo....If it helps, just thought I'd point out that when a paper specifically is titled "Ovulation in a cytogenetically proved phenotypically male fertile hermaphrodite", the clue really is on the name.

And yet, we fully understand that there are humans with streak or immature gonads of one sex and potentially a more developed gonad of the opposite sex.

I don't believe anyone has expressed disbelief that these conditions exist.

I also don't believe that a human cannot be categorised into a sex class at all after puberty has finished, if puberty was able to happen. Sure, they may not be categorised into a sex class as a child, but as an adult, I don't believe that this is true today.

So, you didn't read that paper?

You just read the title?

Bang bang.....suggest reading about mosaicism and chimerism....46XX46XY

We don't ,ALL do anything

Datum......not all copyright protected documentation can be cut & paste.

Has there been an answer to this?
Have I missed it?
In what professional capacity are you making your statements @Anteater1 ?

That paper was written by a surgeon. Simon D Parvin is a surgeon and has not written another paper about people with differences of sex development that I can see.

This is hardly instilling confidence that this case in 1982 was verified by an expert in the field of either reproduction or in differences of sex development.

Hello....no, that's not what I said.
I have read Parvin research, in a university library, as I was very interested in the issue.
(It has also been extensively referred to as PubMed will demonstrate)

YOU said you couldn't access it.
But the title does give literally the biggest possible indication!!

You could screenshoot it.

You really HAVE been asleep in your biology class haven’t you?

• Movement
• Respiration
• Sensitivity
• Control
• Growth
• Excretion
• Nutrition

and at a species level Reproduction is a must even if individuals are infertile.

This is key.

IF (and its a big if) there was a human in 1982 who had the ability to produce both types of gametes, doesn't it just put this unique person in the same category as every other life form that has the ability to produce male and female gametes, like flowers, clownfish etc.?
We've known about the male and female parts of flowers for centuries, but no one was wanging on about sex being bimodal in buttercups.

Bang bang....
No a person in PVS, fully supported, may not be doing all those. Still a person, though.

It doesn't matter how many times a study has been referred to. Being referred to can be an indication that the rest of the scientific world thinks the paper is very flawed.

And no, the title also means shit but you seem to put a huge stock in it.

Parvin was a surgeon. Not a specialist in this field.

Hello...you see to be suggesting that the UK 2 box system if classification is not sufficient to record all variety of humans. I agree
But as things stand 46XX46XY is classified as "male" and 46XX46XY is "female", too

I am not suggesting that at all. Where the fuck do you think I have said that we need more 'boxes' than male or female for recording the sex class of a human?

Absolutely agree, there are variations. But self fertilisation, a human being that can produce both sperm and an egg, that has a womb and can carry a pregnancy to term? Never.

I am also aware that @Anteater1has not yet given an answer to my question how to categorise humans for legal purposes so those known as female, are protected and acknowledged to be different to those known as male. All discussion about DSDs aside, how can we as society ensure everybody can fully participate in society or should we completely remove all protections and rights based on sex? This half in-half out, everybody can be defined as female even when they are male and no DSD, is not working for anyone.

apparently @Anteater1 is more qualified than Professor Winston on this subject 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄😂😂😂.

but howwww?
Identifying as having qualifications is not the same as actually having qualifications

Or that could be the title but the paper could say the subject of the title is a load of gubbins and disprove it. Until you read it….. you’ll never know.

Or that could be the title but the paper could say the subject of the title is a load of gubbins and disprove it. Until you read it….. you’ll never know.

Hello.....Parvin is a surgeon AND researcher.
In the case itself, the histological verification was carried by other specialists.

If it is possible for you to complete a post without swearing.....you suggest that a male must be XY. That's not correct. The karyotype 46XX46XY ,is male.
It is also female
But if you want to say that it ISN'T male then that requires a third box, doesn't?
Basic logic.

And by definition, the Administrative assignment of sex IS how we in the UK legally assign "sex". It isn't how everywhere does it.

There is no single definition of sex in UK law. And no, the FWS decision didn't even attempt to do that.

Yes, I did see that…that was the one possible case in the literature I mentioned in my post to you upthread.

It says
“Histology of his removed ovary suggested that ovulation had, at some time, occurred” (my emphasis).
One report of a suggestion, forty-four years ago.
It’s very intriguing I agree, but hardly conclusive, reproducible evidence.

Are you basing everything on that?