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?

@Waitwhat23

Rarely does ignorance and laziness go hand in hand so well

https://www.ohchr.org/en/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/intersex-people

@Helleofabore
I know where the figure originally came from.
And I also know that it is the figure used by medical oversight bodies that cite an incidence rate.

If you don't like that it is the figure used by the global bodies charged to represent the issue....contact the ohchr.
Let me know how they reply.

Right. So you know that it has been misquoted but you are just going to quote it here as if it was an accurate figure.

Good to know how you view accuracy. Thanks for letting us know.

@Underthinker It is NOT "my argument" anything.
Medical science DOES NOT consider sex to be a strict binary and hasn't done for some years.

If you don't like that.......perhaps start with a complaint to the WHO.

Let me know how they respond to your grievance.

As there has been no forthcoming link for the claims about the GMC, the only thing I can find relating to such a claim around 1% is from the BMA's which links to a report by (amusingly) GIRES which is questionable at best. It concludes that number through self reporting and 'research' based on a small sample of high school aged children in New Zealand and Australia.

Oh do tell us.... was that a full investigation after complete removal of that ovary, an ultrasound, what? How was the evidence of ovulation determined, please?

Oh dear — this thread is like an object lesson in the Dunning-Kruger effect!

I suggest anyone still engaging just stop bothering. Daft as a brush, unfortunately 😆

@Helleofabore
Do you ALWAYS misquote and misrepresent everything?

The global body that represents the issue ohchr cites 1.7%. I know where that figure originally comes from. And I know that the figure ALWAYS included all conditions that produce intersex traits rather than being limited to , for example, total gonadal dysgenesis.

If YOU don't like that the global body representing the issue uses that figure.....write to them. Let me know how they reply.

"Experts estimate that up to 1.7 percent of the population are born with intersex traits."

Does not say that 'expert' estimate is accurate! It clearly shows it as a 'up to'.

Oh no, i saw that. There's no link to that quoted number on their website. Strangely enough. Most sources quoting such a specific statistic would link to the evidence.

I could claim on a website that 8.7% of pigs can actually fly. Doesn't make it true though.

Reminds me of that old joke about made up statistics.

Got that NHS link yet?

Not sure why we're going over this ground all over again.
What does it matter?

Outliers are outliers in science and data terms - the presence of a tiny number of people where their development has gone a bit wrong in the area of sex chromosomes (as opposed to any other chromosomes) does not negate the fact tha humans are sexually dimorphic. It's how we reproduce, that's all. Sex isn't on a spectrum - I can't believe this still has to be brought up.

Here's the link to the discussion of which syndromes are regarded as true disorders of sexual development. It excludes Turner syndrome (affects females), Klinefelter syndrome (affects males), and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia and takes issue with the 1.7% figure becuase it includes these disorders. It suggests the figure of 0.018%.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/

So, this 240M figure is really just irrelevant.

Because the majority of these people are not even requiring further investigation to determine which sex class their body belongs to.

And if it is irrelevant to the discussion, why mention it.

Well it is your arguemnt that sex isnt binary, and you based that on 3% of the population having intersex traits or gender incongrunece.

When
1.699% - of that have some common condition that means hormones/chromosomes are not "normal" but still the person is obviously male or female.

0.001% have rarer conditions that need investigation to determine male or female,

And the rest are trans - male or female.

So in summary, everyone is male or female, apart from one guy tested in 1982 that a surgeon thought might be both.

@Helleofabore
It was after full removal of the ovary and dissection with tissue examination showing clear evidence of the adrenal scarring that CAN ONLY happen after ovulation.
It was exactly the same histological test used in EVERY case of removal and dissection of an ovary.

As previously explained, the only reason "assumed" was used in the research was in the sense....assumed to have taken place BEFORE spermatogenesis was possible, rather than concurrent, as ovulation was not concurrent with the examination.

Medical science DOES NOT consider sex to be a strict binary and hasn't done for some years.

You do realise that (to use your own very outmoded term “intersex traits”), that “intersex traits” means having traits from both sides of —a male and female binary. This doesn’t do away with a binary: it reinforces it 😆

It really is amateur hour on MN today!

@Helleofabore that might be the most bizarre non sequitur to date.
ALL incidence rates are presented without everyone in the world being tested.
You haven't been tested at a chromosomal level or brain dissection level, either !!

That's how medicine works.

@Underthinker No. It is not MY argument.
It is the accepted global medical position.
If you don't like it ....contact the WHO. They'll be delighted

@catontheironingboard
Thank you for joining in.
If YOU don't like the accepted global medical position.....write to the WHO.

Arbritarily… it is not a picklist. If, and only if, there is unclarity, testing can confirm if the DSD is the male or female kind and the box M or F can still be ticked.

You can’t compare the German system to the UK one, the classification in Germany has nothing to do with the sex of a person, it is really a choice and can be changed yearly. Germany doesn’t have administrative sex registration but administrative gender, their word for sex is the same as for gender.

Thinking this through as well in the UK, say we add a third option of other. The EA still allows for single sex services and sports, so anything meant for female people would just exclude other and male. Would you be ok with that as a solution?

@sanluca
It's getting more bizarre

Seriously, just read the Y v France case and learn something

This is not an “accepted global medical position” anywhere else than teenage Tumblr posts. 🤣

@sanluca

If you want to learn something about UK registration and correction processes for intersex people.....because it was assigned arbitrarily when sex could not be determined....

www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate

Why have you linked to a page about gender recognition certicates

@catontheironingboard

Excellent, I'm sure the WHO will enjoy your letter.
Let me know what they reply to you, please. I would enjoy that.

Why do you think the WHO is anything to do with basic ideas in medicine? It’s a public health body. They aren’t the same thing 😆