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?

Name.....well , if you pop over to your local university I'm sure they will be able to bring up all the Oxford AC papers for you to read

So you got nothing then. Well this has been fun but it still remains. Sex in humans is binary and immutable and you’ve spent hours shouting into the abyss. I hope you find it a productive and worthwhile experience. Ciao Bello

"If it is possible for you to complete a post without swearing."

This is Mumsnet, and if you fucking cannot someone swearing in a post, I suggest that you will find your reading scope very limited. That you felt you should fucking censure me for my language is very informative.

I DON'T suggest a male must be XY at all.

You seem to not be reading posts. Please point out to me where the fuck I have said that a male must be XY.

I think that they are.

I agree that there seems to be a huge amount of assumption based on this single report in 1982. I have read about the case previously and also pointed out at that time that it did not say that it was proven in any way. Just that there were signs that 'suggested' that it may have occurred.

As I said, it would be very interesting to know what current technology would have provided as to what had happened.

Name...... could you name JUST ONE Medical oversight body that agrees with you? That would be marvellous.

Hello ....keep swearing.....to yourself.

Do you find it unladylike?

I suggest you report any post you find objectionable and let MN mods who take a balanced and professional view decide whether to fucking delete a post or not.

I would be very interested to hear where they don't use sex observed at birth to assign administrative sex. Could you please explain where this is done differently?

And again, the question to you,@Anteater1, is what is the purpose of registering administrative sex if it is impossible to classify people in a sex classification and can be changed? So why not stop with it all? It serves no purpose and nobody knows what sex they are anyway.

@Anteater1 if you type @ you'll get a drop down, scrollable list of pp (possibly depending on what version on MN you're using). It'll notify the other posters that they've been mentioned.

Omfg Ant do some due diligence before you lecture on this board - do a few advanced searches on discussions here about DSD - we have seen all this shit a million times before - you are not doing a big reveal - it’s embarrassing

there aren’t 240million people with DSDs

I am obviously not at my best super feminine today...

The winter nights must fly by with such dulcet language to amuse yourself.

Anyway, returning to the basic issue, as was noted in the Parvin case (should you ever visit a university) the histology was conclusive as to evidence of ovulation prior to the individual being able to produce sperm.
The removed ovary had clear evidence of scarring that ONLY occurs after ovulation has taken place.
THAT is the definitive histological evidence for ovulation in ANYONE, and the only reason "assumed" is used because ovulation was not concurrent with the investigation.

Again, visiting a university might explain that .

Enjoy the winter !!

Just not.....first, I did not claim 240,000,000 with DSDs. I stated and repeat, "240,000,000 people alive today with intersex traits or incongruence".

If you do not like those figures, complain to the UN ohchr, NHS and every other oversight body that cited an incidence rate for intersex traits, and the GMC and every other medical body that cite an incidence rate for incongruence.

Please let me know how they reply.

@lcakethereforeIam
Thank you

@sanluca
Again, You've misunderstood. There are some people for whom it is not possible to determine a sex from medical observation or testing, yet in the UK, even in those cases a box must arbitrarily be ticked.
Perhaps reading about the German or Indian registration systems might be informative.

That's simply not true though. You're lying.

@TheKeatingFive no, it's absolutely correct.
The same system operates in France. The published case of Y v France 2023 being a very recently discussed example of how and why 2 box systems really don't work for everyone.

But how does the registrar decide which word to "assign" if not based on what the medical professional observed? Could I have asked the registrar to assign DS2 female so I achieved the ultimate "one of each" that everyone seems to covet.

So apparently medics don’t believe sex exists. Where do they think babies come from?

No. Every single person born can be classified as male or female.

@HaddyAbrams
@TheKeatingFive

You know, it would be so much better to read the case of Y v France as referred to you, BEFORE posting.

This report claims 1.7% of births are intersex, (but also claims that 0.1% of births are intersex), and that that 'The United Nations says experts estimate that 1.7 percent of the world's population of 8 billion or around 136,000,000 people are born with intersex traits and can include those of any gender or sexual orientation.' https://www.upi.com/TopNews/World-News/2024/04/04/UN-intersex-transgender-human-rights/4221712251924/

Whereas this says 'Conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female, occur in 0.018% of the population' - which would give a little over 1,400,000 worldwide. https://statsforgender.org/it-is-not-true-that-1-7-of-the-population-is-intersex-the-proportion-of-people-with-dsds-intersex-conditions-is-0-018/

Italics used correctly to indicate direct quotation.

My, we really do need a 'how to post on Mumsnet' how to guide for our visiting scolders.

Why are they never able to quote posts properly? Or use the @ to tag the user they wish to address?

And yes, we are allowed to swear here. It's amusing being told off for swearing by a condescending prick btw!